Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ABERDEEN EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Aberdeen Extension (to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Act)," presented by Mr. J. Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Parents' Pensions

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Pensions what revision is to be made in the basis of need on which parents' pensions in respect of deceased Service men are calculated.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): Owing to certain administrative difficulties, which I hope will soon be overcome, I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that answer mean that the Minister can give an assurance that there will be some increase in the scale for these very deserving pensioners within the not too distant future?

Mr. Amory: I should like to assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I realise the need, and that I am going to make a move at the earliest moment that I can do so effectively.

Disablement Pensions

Mr. William Paling: asked the Minister of Pensions how many of the

16,170 ex-Service men receiving pensions at the total disablement rate and also the unemployability supplement, were disabled in the first and second world wars, respectively.

Mr. Amory: Seven thousand seven hundred and twenty and 8,450, respectively.

Mr. Paling: In view of the fact that a large number of the more severely disabled, including paraplegics, have been trained for suitable jobs, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the majority of them were successful in getting such, jobs and in keeping them?

Mr. Amory: Speaking very generally, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are very pleased at the proportion of these severely disabled men who are at present in jobs, and that we are delighted at the small proportion who have lost them. I only hope that it will go on. We can rejoice in the present position.

Malayan Police (War Injuries)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider amending the Royal Warrant governing the entitlement to pension for death or injury as a result of enemy action, in order to embrace certain classes for whom no provision is made at present, such as members of the Malayan Police Force who are in the position of front line soldiers in the present position.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. Compensation is payable in respect of the death or injury of members of the Malayan Police Force under provisions which are administered by the Government of Malaya.

Mr. Driberg: Would the hon. Gentleman take into account the case, which I have sent to him, of a constituent of mine, an elderly widow, whose son was killed while serving in the Malayan Police Force and who was told in the official letter that her son had died for his country every bit as much as if he had been in the Army? Does that not suggest that there would be a certain equity in the suggestion of my hon. Friend?

Mr. Amory: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that a matter of this kind is not for me and that the question


should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. Awbery: Should not a policeman who is on duty in a village on the edge of the jungle and is continuously in a dangerous position be treated in much the same way as a soldier who goes into the jungle occasionally?

Mr. Amory: I shall not express an opinion on that point. In this respect I must be limited by my statutory responsibilities, which do not cover the case which the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Simmons: Is it not true that the Minister is responsible under the Royal Warrant for civilian war casualties, Civil Defence casualties and the Merchant Navy? Surely this is only an extension of those responsibilities.

Mr. Amory: I am responsible within the limitations of the Acts for injuries arising out of these activities during the late war.

Older Disabled Pensioners (Reassessments)

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Pensions the progress made with medical examination of the older war disability pensioners; the numbers and percentages of increased assessments awarded for worsened disablement during the past two years in the groups pensioned, respectively, for ailments, wounds and injuries, and amputations; and what provision is made by his regulations to ensure that severely wounded men are adequately compensated for increasing disability with advancing age.

Mr. Amory: As regards the first and second parts of the Question, 2,900 of these elderly 1914–18 war pensioners, including 298 amputees, received increased awards during the two years ended 30th June, 1952, because of material worsening of their war disablement. I regret that the other particulars asked for cannot be furnished without undue research. As regards the third part of the Question, the hon. Member will know that leaflets were sent in 1948 and recently to all disablement pensioners, reminding them of the steps they should take if they wished their pensions to be reviewed.

Mr. Simmons: Will the pending report of the Rock Carling Committee have some bearing upon these facts? Was that committee concerned just with paper and figures, or with human beings? If only with paper and figures, why not get the Welfare Department to visit some of these old disabled men in their own homes and in the Ex-Service men's Homes to see just what the worsening is?

Mr. Amory: The committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers are concerned with the medical aspect of these problems, within their terms of reference. I am looking forward very much to their report, which I hope to get before very long. As regards the Welfare Department, I am only too anxious that my welfare officers, up to the absolute limit of the time they have, should call on these severely disabled pensioners. Whenever they hear of any case that would benefit from a call they are only too glad to go there.

Mr. L. M. Lever: When is the Minister going to tell us what he proposes to do in relation to the claims of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association for the older disabled men who lost legs or eyes or suffered other disabilities, about which we made very strong representations some months ago? How long is this to be delayed? Are these men to die off before they get their rights?

Mr. Amory: I have not forgotten the representations which the hon. Member has made. I answered a Question on this matter the other day and in doing so pointed out the difficulty I have in discriminating in favour of any one category of disablement without medical evidence to support me. I have the matter under consideration. It may well be that the committee to which the hon. Gentleman just referred may have something to say on this subject when they report. If so, I shall take their evidence very fully into consideration.

Mr. Stokes: In defence of the English language, may I ask the hon. Gentleman what an "amputee" is?

Mr. Amory: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I did not invent this term. It means someone who has had a limb amputated.

Mr. Stokes: Who invented it?

Mr. Amory: I am not in a position to answer, but possibly the same person who invented the term which I heard yesterday, "banishee."

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Z Reserve

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men in Scotland have sought, and how many have been granted, remission of periods of service on the Z Reserve; on what grounds such remission was granted; and for what periods.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): To get these details would involve a special scrutiny of the documents of all those who have applied for exemption from, or deferment of, Z reservist training. I do not think the effort would be justified, since men in Scotland are treated the same as everyone else.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is discontent as to the manner in which some of these applications are dealt with and the evidence adduced to support them, and would he state the principles upon which he acts in these matters?

Mr. Head: Men are granted exemption either on compassionate or medical grounds. Any man who applies and does not get exemption is always discontented, but I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that applications are carefully considered and, on the whole, I think we have made a reasonably good job of it.

Mr. A. Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War why form A.F.D. 406 sent to Z reservists is referred to in a covering letter as a "screening" form.

Mr. Head: This form is designed to provide the Ministry of Labour and National Service with the necessary information to find out whether or not a reservist is in a category likely to be available for recall in emergency. This process is known as "screening," a word of wide application and borrowed from the coal trade.

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the use of this term tends to cause annoyance to those who receive

the letter? Will he consider discouraging the importation of unnecessary and ambiguous terms into these documents?

Mr. Head: The word "screening" has a very wide application. I think it is only because of certain notorious individuals who have talked about screening that it has acquired a certain slur in its connotation.

Personal Cases

Mr. Tomney: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement respecting the death of 22502217 Fusilier G. Marshall, Royal Fusiliers, British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Head: I much regret the accident which resulted in the death of this soldier, and I would express my sympathy with his parents. During an exercise in the early hours of 22nd April a scout car in which he was travelling overturned into a sandpit. Three of the occupants were pinned beneath the car, and when it was lifted Fusilier Marshall and the officer in command of the scout car were found to be dead.

Mr. Tomney: Is the Minister aware of the fact that this staff car was ordered to proceed across country under cover of darkness without headlights, that in so doing it fell into a sandpit 20 feet deep, that it was four hours before these men were found, and then only because the driver of the vehicle with a badly smashed shoulder walked five miles to secure help, and that during that period one man lay dead, another dying and another injured? Will he take steps in future to see that obstacles of this character are sufficiently reconnoitred and danger signals posted before we waste lives unnecessarily in this way?

Mr. Head: The time of the accident has been carefully checked. From the time this incident occurred to the arrival of the rescue party was one hour and 20 minutes. With regard to training, we are confronted with the difficult problem that, if we have all training at night with headlights, the realism of this type of training suffers considerably. Although these accidents are most regrettable, they have been few, and I believe that to have undue safety precautions for training might result in a much greater loss of life in the event of war.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War why 7591061 Corporal Bartolo had still not been posted to Malta in the middle of May; whether Corporal Bartolo is now in Malta; what are the reasons for the delay in handling this case, which was first brought to the attention of his Department on 24th January, 1952; and if, in view of the hardship caused to Corporal Bartolo's wife and children, he will make the issue of the local overseas allowance and special family allowance retrospective to 8th April, 1952.

Mr. Head: Corporal Bartolo and his family are now united in Tripoli. For various administrative reasons I regret that it was found impracticable to post him to Malta on compassionate grounds. No retrospective payment of these allowances can be made.

Mr. Driberg: Does the Minister recollect that the date of 8th April in the Question is the date on which he assured the House that this man would be posted to Malta very shortly, but that he had still not been posted a month after that? Could he say the date on which they were reunited?

Mr. Head: I recall that well. Indeed, it was on the strength of a signal at that time from the Middle East that he was to be posted to Malta. The administrative reasons are rather complicated, but I can tell them to the hon. Gentleman behind the Chair. As a result, his wife came to Tripoli instead of him going to Malta. I think they are now reunited, and I hope he is content.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the sentence of 112 days' detention imposed on Private C. A. McNichol, a National Service man professing Communist views, for disobeying a lawful command, has been confirmed.

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Driberg: Has the right hon. Gentleman any further facts to give the House about this case?

Mr. Head: This man had been called up; he had fired several times on the range. One day he said he would not let off his rifle. He was asked again to do it, he was warned of the consequences, he came before his commanding officer,

was punished, and will shortly go before an appellate tribunal.

Mr. Wigg: Is the Secretary of State telling the House that the commanding officer awarded the man 112 days' detention?

Mr. Head: No, I said he went before his commanding officer before he was remanded.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that so much care has been taken to keep information about secret weapons from the Communists, what is the point of sending them into the Army where they will be in close contact with those secret weapons?

Mr. Head: The 303 rifle is not on the secret list.

Mr. Simmons: asked the Secretary of State for War why the parents of Gunner Shillingsford, who was taken by military escort to Brierley Hill police court, were not notified, in order that legal advice could have been provided for him.

Mr. Head: My hon. Friend has explained to the hon. Member that it is never the practice of my Department to inform the parents or relatives when a soldier is in this sort of trouble. I think that the hon. Member will agree that to do so would be an unwarranted interference in the man's private affairs, Any man is, of course, perfectly free to inform them himself.

Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that this young lad is practically illiterate and mentally retarded, that he was taken within three miles of his home under escort, his parents were not informed and no defence could be provided, yet the officer who accompanied him was a hostile witness in the force? Where was the Army Legal Aid Department?

Mr. Head: It was perfectly open for this man to apply for legal aid and equally open to him to inform his parents of his trouble. Even though he is illiterate and rather short in brain power, he could surely have found some method of informing his parents.

Mr. Simmons: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Conscientious Objectors (Postings)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War what is his policy in regard to the posting to Korea, Malaya or Western Germany, of avowed Communists who have registered as conscientious objectors on political grounds but have been refused exemption from National Service.

Mr. Head: There is no specific policy on this matter: each case is considered on its merits.

Mr. Driberg: Quite apart from the rights of the Army or of any individual in it, is it not evident that it would be absurd to post to Korea, for instance, a man who is legally entitled to believe that the other side in Korea is the right side?

Mr. Head: If I gave to this House an undertaking that I would post no Communists to Korea, it might result in a recruiting drive for the Communist Party.

Mr. P. Roberts: Could I ask my right hon. Friend whether this means that those people consider that they owe a greater allegiance to Russia than they do to this country?

Mr. Head: That is not within my province.

Army Emergency Reserve

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of its present functions, composition and importance, he is satisfied with recruiting for the Army Supplementary Reserve.

Mr. Head: No, Sir. The total requirement for the Supplementary Reserve is about 140,000 all ranks. Of this number we require some 38,500 volunteers. Up to date we have got only 7,500 volunteers. The volunteers play a vital part in this most important Reserve.
I believe that the failure in recruiting is largely due to the fact that little is known about these most important units which provide the great majority of technical and specialist reserve units to complete the Regular and Territorial Armies on mobilization. I have taken steps to increase publicity and thus, I hope, recruiting. I think that the title "Supplementary Reserve" is neither descriptive nor inspiring, and we have decided to call this most important section of the Army the Army Emergency

Reserve. I very much hope that with the aid of increased publicity, and I hope the full support of employers in industry, more volunteers will be forthcoming in the future.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Secretary of State think that the best name for this force is "Technical Units of the Reserve or Territorial Army," which in fact is what it is? We appreciate the fact that he is changing the name from the old one, but I feel doubts about the new name.

Mr. Head: I thought of the terms "technical unit" and "specialist unit" we have thought a lot about this. Although the majority are technical units, some are not, and I felt that such an embracing term would be somewhat ridiculous when applied to a very small proportion of these units.

Mr. Wigg: How many meetings of the Army Council were held before it was decided that the title "Army Emergency Reserve" was more inspiring than "Army Supplementary Reserve"?

Mr. Head: There were no meetings of the Army Council and this was settled within three days.

Mr. Stokes: When is a unit not a technical unit?

Mr. Head: In Army parlance an infantry battalion, for example, is not technical.

Officers, Canal Zone (Resignations)

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for War how many resignations have been submitted in the last six months by Regular Army officers stationed in the Canal Zone; and what percentage of them are married.

Mr. Head: Between 1st January and 30th June this year, 41 Regular officers serving in the Canal Zone applied to retire voluntarily: of these, 73 per cent. were married.

Mr. Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allowances for married officers, who for long periods have to be separated from their familities, are generally considered to be inadequate, and that this view is held especially by all commanding officers at present serving in the Canal Zone?

Mr. Head: I am aware of that.

Mr. Lindsay: Then will my right hon. Friend say that he hopes to get matters improved in conversations with the Treasury?

Mr. Head: There are a great many matters in which there is plenty of room for improvement, but I can give no guarantee on them.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has the right hon. Gentleman wiped out the differentiation between the rates of pay of officers referred to in the Question and those for officers attached to the Command Secretariat in the Canal Zone, who get very much higher rates of pay but, apparently, do less work?

Mr. Head: I am aware of certain anomalies, and we are going into the question not only of marriage allowance but of seperation allowance for people in the Middle and Far East.

Mr. Simmons: How many other ranks have applied for permission to resign from the Canal Zone?

Mr. Head: That is another question.

Sandhurst Cadets

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War what percentages of the cadets at present training at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, were educated at public schools, grammar schools, and secondary modern schools, respectively.

Mr. Head: The percentages for the cadets under training for the British Army are 67 from the headmasters' conference schools, 22 from grammar schools, 4 from secondary modern schools and 10.6 from other schools. The other schools include various Army schools and schools overseas.

Mr. Swingler: To what extent is preference given at Sandhurst to candidates with a public school education? In view of the fact that the overwhelming majority of cadets come from that minority which is privileged to get a public school education, will the right hon. Gentleman show these figures to the Minister of Education and emphasise the importance of getting more equal opportunities of secondary education, in order to get a more representative cross-section of cadet?

Mr. Head: I am satisfied that these boards are entirely impartial in their selection of these young men. It has fallen to my lot to start a school with the express purpose of getting to Sandhurst a larger proportion of secondary and grammar school boys.

Mr. K. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he sets too high a figure for the entrance of public school candidates into Sandhurst, he runs a great danger of filling the Army with too many friends of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Wigg: How many officers of the Brigade of Guards are there who have not attended other than State schools?

Mr. Head: I could not answer that without notice. The hon. Member's bee in his bonnet on this subject is unduly buzzing.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the egalitarian qualities of the British Army are best demonstrated by the fact that two former Chiefs of the Imperial General Staff, of nonpublic school origin, have won promotion from the ranks?

Troops, Canal Zone (Leave)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements he has made to enable British troops in the Canal Zone to take their leave in Cyprus.

Mr. Head: A special summer leave scheme has been started to allow those who have served six months or more in Egypt, and still have six months to serve in the theatre, to take 10 days' leave in Cyprus or, provided their families are there, in Libya. Travel in both cases is free.
The scheme includes Regulars and National Service men and their families, and the leave camps in Cyprus have been improved and extended to make conditions there as good as possible.

Major Legge-Bourke: While welcoming that reply, may I ask what free passes in the way of travel are issued and whether my right hon. Friend will give


the assurance that this form of leave will never be regarded as a substitute for leave to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Head: This is purely local leave, and all this leave is free.

Military Academy, Sandhurst (Incidents)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has a statement to make on the recent disorders at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst.

Mr. Head: On 8th July, it was announced at the R.M.A., Sandhurst, that the Gaza Company had won the intercompany competition for the third term running. Subsequently, during a display of jubilation, some slight damage was caused to property, which will be paid for by the cadets concerned. Although the roof was climbed and some cadets fell in the lake, such occurrences are not exceptional, and I see no cause for concern about the general standard of discipline and behaviour at the Royal Military Academy.

Mr. Wigg: Although the right hon. Gentleman is trying to laugh this off, will he inform the House whether anyone was admitted to hospital and what is the total estimated cost of the damage to public property?

Mr. Head: The total of the damage was about £60, which, divided among the number of cadets concerned, will not be a very large financial responsibility for them. With regard to hospital, there were some minor injuries, but everybody is now perfectly all right again.

Mr. Wigg: Would the right bon. Gentleman answer the question: were there any admissions to hospital?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir.

Agriculture Courses

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Army prerelease courses in agriculture have been stopped; and what saving results from this step.

Mr. Head: These courses were stopped in December last year because the cost of staff, live-stock, equipment, and so on, was, in my opinion, no longer justified by the numbers of students who wished to take advantage of them. A staff of 22

officers and men had to be maintained for an average of 15 students on each course. The resulting saving is about £6,000 a year.

Sir L. Plummer: Will the Secretary of State for War consult his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of his right hon. Friend's speech at the weekend in which he said that agriculture is now a first priority, and consider not only putting these courses back, but organising them on a better basis, so that agriculture can stop the drift from the land that is now going on at an alarming pace?

Mr. Head: In addition to this, there are other courses. Any Regular who leaves the Army can go on a year's course, which is paid for all the time, to learn agriculture. A National Service man goes on a course which is run by the county agricultural committee.

Mr. Godber: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is probably better to stop calling up skilled agricultural workers than to indulge in the training of others to go into agriculture?

Mr. Head: That is another question.

Home Guard, Scotland

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many recruits joined the Home Guard in the month of June; and how many were from Scotland.

Mr. Head: The figures for the latter half of June are not yet available but, from 16th May to 15th June, 5,300 recruits joined the Home Guard, and of these 415 joined in Scotland.

Tanks, Dunbar

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for War how much his Department have paid out in meeting claims for damage done by tanks in Dunbar during the last five years; and what would be the cost of removing these vehicles permanently to a convenient parking place clear of the burgh.

Mr. Head: The sum of £95 11s. 2d. has been paid on account of damage to property, and £17 13s. 2d. for damage to roads. To remove these tanks elsewhere would cost about £7,500.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Is it not the case that an expensive scheme for widening the gates is now being proposed? In the interests of economy as well as of general convenience, would it not be much better to consider shifting the tanks to a place where they would be better sited?

Mr. Head: It is my experience that wherever tanks go they are unwelcome.

Military College of Science

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for War the estimated output from the proposed Military College of Science; and to what extent those trained at this college will be obliged to undertake military Service subsequently, or to what extent they will be free to take up other activities after leaving.

Mr. Head: It is hoped that about 40 candidates a year will take the degree course for direct entry into the Army and that a further 40 young officers each year will also take the course. All officers taking these degree courses are required to serve for five years from the date on which the course ends.

Mr. Janner: In the event of any of these officers being found suitable for civilian occupation in priority to any military occupation, will special consideration be given to permit them to enter that occupation?

Mr. Head: The whole object of the course is to make these young men knowledgeable in the technical and scientific world, so that they can spread that knowledge in the Army. That is of the greatest importance at the present time.

B.B.C. Forces Network, Hamburg

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War when he decided to cut down the local programmes broadcast by the British Forces Network at Hamburg.

Mr. Head: Certain reductions had to be made in Germany to save deutschmarks. This was one of the recommendations of the Commanders-in-Chief and was accepted. There will continue to be an all day service on the Forces Network, but far more items will consist

of selected relays from the B.B.C. Light and Home programmes.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when in answer to a Question I put to him on 8th April, he said:
There is no intention of closing down the British Forces Network."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 2476.]
he in fact grossly misled the House? Is he aware that "Mrs. Dale's Diary" and matters of that kind are really not the stuff to give the troops?

Mr. Head: What I said then is exactly what I meant. There is no intention of closing down the Forces Network in B.A.O.R. It will remain open, but, instead of hiring dance bands and symphony concerts from among people in Germany, the troops will get it from this country. I am not qualified to comment on "Mrs. Dale's Diary."

Commonwealth Division, Korea

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War what proportions of the cost of the Commonwealth Division in Korea are borne by the British and Commonwealth Governments, respectively.

Mr. Head: Each Government bears the whole cost of paying its own troops, equipping them to war scales and transporting them to and from Korea. The cost of maintaining the force in Korea is shared among the participating Governments on the basis of the strength of the various contingents. The United Kingdom Government's total share of maintenance expenditure to date has been about 80 per cent. of the whole.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a really fair proportion of the cost which ought to be borne by this country? Is he malting any attempt to secure more equitable distribution of the cost of the Commonwealth Division between the various Commonwealth countries concerned?

Mr. Head: This is not only a fair share but a precise share. Over the whole period it has averaged 80 per cent. since the war in Korea began. Since the increase in Canadian Forces our share has gone down to 55 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Carpet Industry

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the substantial opportunities for sale of British machine-made carpets in Western Germany; and whether, in view of the German surplus on European Payments Union account and the continuing United Kingdom deficit on that account, he will instruct the office of the United Kingdom commercial representative at Cologne-Marienburg to press the German Government for British machine-made carpets to be placed on the list of goods not subject to German import quota restrictions, and thus help the employment position in Kidderminster and other carpet manufacturing centres in the United Kingdom.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): The German Federal Government have recently removed quota restrictions over a considerable range of their trade, including machine-made carpets of cotton; and we shall continue to take every suitable opportunity to press for improved facilities for those of our exports, including machine-made carpets of wool, which are still subject to quota restrictions.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a large range of manufactured goods are admitted into the United Kingdom, free of quota restrictions or tariff, from Western Germany? Would it not be equitable if reciprocal advantages could be obtained for our principal manufactures, notably such articles as woollen carpets?

Mr. Mackeson: I understand that in view of Germany's balance of payments situation O.E.E.C. are now investigating her claim to have freed 75 per cent. of her imports. If this proves true, since carpets are on the O.E.E.C. Common List, we would expect to sell more.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that this form of private enterprise hinders rather than helps successful national trade negotiations?

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of carpet imports into the United Kingdom during the six months ended 30th June, 1952; and the anticipated level of imports during the second half of 1952 in

consideration of the present state of the carpet industry in Britain.

Mr. Mackeson: The value of carpets imported into the United Kingdom in the first six months of 1952 was £1,836,000. In view of the general uncertainty of the market, I should not care to predict the level of carpet imports during the remainder of the year.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend undertake to bear in mind the exceptionally difficult conditions in the British carpet industry arising from the 80 per cent. cuts in Australian imports? Would he therefore review very closely all future United Kingdom import programmes for carpets? Can he in particular say what has been the level of imports for the first six months of this year as compared with the first six months of last year?

Mr. Mackeson: Of course, I will bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind. The imports for the first six months of last year were approximately £10 million.

Imported Cane Chairs (Utility Marking)

Mr. Wills: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has allowed cane chairs manufactured in Hong Kong to be given a variation licence from the standard general specification for Utility furniture and permitted them the use of the British Utility mark.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): Imported furniture which complies with the Board of Trade's requirements has, since 1946, been able to qualify for the use of the Utility mark; similarly, variation licences have been issued for imported furniture on the same grounds, and with the same safeguards, as for home-produced furniture. The licence to which my hon. Friend refers was issued in 1950 in accordance with this practice.

Mr. Wills: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the Utility mark should be a guarantee of quality and of standard and that the quality of these imported chairs is far below the quality of chairs manufactured in this country? Is he aware that the Utility specification with which our people have to comply makes it impossible for them to manufacture chairs at so low a figure as these imported chairs?

Mr. Strauss: The variation licences do not permit any lowering of quality and the same standard is applied to the article whether it is imported or home produced. In regard to the particular chairs to which my hon. Friend referred, no complaint of any kind has been received by my Department.

Mr. Wills: If I produce the two chairs, one made in one country and the other made in another country, will my hon. and learned Friend sit on both and judge of their quality?

Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that there has been no lowering of the Utility standard for either overseas goods or home-produced goods?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir.

Mr. W. R. Hudson: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that blind persons as well as others are engaged in making this cane furniture and that if importation is continued it may have a very serious effect on their employment?

Electricity Charges, Merseyside

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disproportionately high charges made for electricity for industrial purposes by the Merseyside and North Wales Electricity Board which are having a deterrent effect on new industries considering establishing themselves in the Merseyside Development Area in how many cases has this factor been represented to him as deciding industrial developers to establish their factories elsewhere; and if he will consult with the British Electricity Authority with a view to the reduction of these tariffs.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am informed that a complaint has been made to the Ministry of Fuel and Power about electricity charges in the Merseyside area, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the Electricity Act, 1947, provides machinery for dealing with such complaints. I do not know of any case in which electricity charges have deterred an industrialist from establishing a factory in the area.

Mr. Thompson: Will my hon. and learned Friend agree that the standard of electricity charges is a very important factor to be taken into account by

intending industrialists? Is he further aware that the machinery for consumer consultation to which he referred in his answer is very ineffective? Would he do what he can to improve it to make it more effective?

Mr. Strauss: I stated in my original answer that we knew of no case in which electricity charges had in fact deterred an industrialist from establishing a factory in the area. The question of the efficacy of the procedure under the Act is, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and not for me.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these increased charges are placing a very severe burden on industries which are already suffering badly? If I supply him with evidence that the cost per unit of electricity for some mills has trebled during the last four months, will he look into the case?

Mr. Strauss: I think that in the first place the hon. Member should use the machinery provided under the Electricity Act.

Mr. Speaker: Air Commodore Harvey.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there are more than 20 Questions on the Order Paper addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, mostly from hon. Members on the Government back benches. May we know where the President of the Board of Trade is? Has he resigned?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Textile Industry

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for all imports of textile articles of foreign manufacture to be marked with the name of the country of origin or with the word "Foreign."

Mr. H. Strauss: Orders under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, already require many classes of imported textile goods to be marked with an indication of origin. We should be prepared to refer to the Standing Committee on Marking Orders any application which we might receive from a representative body to make an Order extending that requirement to further classes of textiles.

Air Commodore Harvey: In spite of what my right hon. and learned Friend says, great quantites of textiles come into Britain from France, Italy and Switzerland which are not marked. Will he take the lead, together with industry, to see that something is done?

Mr. Strauss: I am not quite sure, from my hon. and gallant Friend's question, whether he is suggesting that there is any breach of the law.

Air Commodore Harvey: Yes, there is.

Mr. Strauss: If so, I will of course consider any case that he brings to my notice, but, if he wishes an Order to be made for an additional class of textiles, the procedure which I have indicated should be followed.

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will sponsor a campaign to buy British textiles.

Mr. H. Strauss: Her Majesty's Government would, of course, welcome increased purchases of British textiles, but the responsibility for a campaign such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests must lie with the textile industries.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. and learned Friend go a little further and say to what extent the Government will render assistance? Would he also bear in mind that by doing this we shall keep foreign textiles out of Britain and we shall sell our own?

Mr. Strauss: There is a certain vagueness and ambiguity about the use of the word "sponsor" in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, but I did not wish in my answer to suggest that these very vigorous industries are not capable of initiating their own campaigns.

Mr. Edelman: As a first step in this proposed campaign, will the Minister consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order that he might discontinue his deflationary policy, as nothing could be better to prevent a slump in textiles?

Mr. Fernyhough: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman consult with the Minister of Labour with a view to getting him to sign the 12 Orders which he has so far refused to sign, which would thus put extra purchasing power in the pockets of two million people, thereby enabling

them to make a contribution to the object of such a campaign.

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has reached any decision on the desirability of scheduling certain textile areas as Development Areas under the Distribution of Industry Acts.

Mr. H. Strauss: No, Sir. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the question of scheduling new areas as Development Areas needs very full investigation. Besides the claims of the textile areas, we must also take into account proposals which have been made for scheduling other areas. All these proposals are now being considered.

Mr. Jay: But in view of the success that this policy has had in the old distressed areas, and the present situation in textile areas, is there really any reason why the Government should delay action any longer?

Mr. Strauss: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, who I know has taken an interest in this topic, will find that the 1948 White Paper on the Distribution of Industry lays down some quite complicated matters which must be taken into consideration, particularly in paragraph 86 of that Report. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that to consider these matters carefully and reach the correct conclusion is much more important than to reach a quick decision. He will remember that, when this matter was raised in an Adjournment debate, the party opposite, among others, was quite divided on whether this was an advisable step or not.

Mr. John MacLeod: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that ever since the Highland Development Area was scheduled by the last Government, no industry has come into the Highlands, and will this Government do more about it?

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that whatever difference of opinion about this matter may exist elsewhere there is no difference of opinion about it in any quarter in North-East Lancashire, which unanimously desires it to be scheduled? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House anything about the recent negotiations which his Department has had with the local authorities in that area?
Will he also bear in mind that although it is very important to come to a correct decision it would be too late to come to a correct decision after all industry in this area has come to an end?

Mr. Strauss: I think that if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will refer to the debate of 21st May this year, he will find that there was a considerable difference of opinion among Lancashire Members. As regards discussion with local authorities, it is quite true that we contemplate that.

Mr. Fort: Will my hon. and learned Friend take action which will be equivalent to declaring a Development Area in North-East Lancashire in view of the undoubted legal complications and prolonged negotiations involved in taking effective action under the Development Areas Acts?

Mr. Strauss: Certainly. I am glad that my hon. Friend raises the point. Needless to say the fact that this area has not been declared a Development Area does not mean that we cannot take many steps to encourage orders to go there, and that we are doing.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of the fact that there is no real evidence of any substantial improvement in the cotton and rayon producing areas, will the hon. and learned Gentleman be able to give an interim reply on this point before the Government go on their holidays for the summer?

An Hon. Member: And the Opposition.

Mr. Strauss: I do not expect to be able to announce a decision on this matter before the Adjournment.

Silk Fabrics

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, when deciding new import quotas of silk fabric, he will take into account the trade recession which now exists in the industry in this country.

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir. The availability of supplies from home production will certainly be taken into account together with all other relevant considerations.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the

causes for the recession in the silk trade is because of the generous quota allowed to foreign manufacturers by the previous Administration? Will my hon. Friend deal with this matter at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Mackeson: The quotas for this year have been fixed and are considerably lower than imports last year.

N.E. Development Area

Mr. F. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what number of persons, men and women separately, were employed in North-Eastern Trading Company factories in Sunderland on the latest available date.

Mr. H. Strauss: On 24th May, 1952, the latest date for which official statistics are available, 1,312 men and boys and 3,483 women and girls, making a total of 4,795, were unemployed in these factories.

Mr. Willey: Does the hon. and learned Member realise that we are very disturbed in Sunderland at the fact that these newly-built factories are employing numbers far short of those that they were expected to employ?

Mr. Strauss: I think that there are further Questions on this subject later today.

Mr. F. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade, as the numbers employed have fallen by 2,373 persons between 30th September, 1951, and 31st May, 1952, and are continuing to fall, what special steps he is taking to promote employment in the factories administered by the North-Eastern Trading Estates Limited.

Mr. H. Strauss: While unemployment in the North Eastern Development Area at 2.5 per cent. is greater than the average for the country at 2.1 per cent., it is much less than the average of the development areas as a whole at 3.4 per cent. In these circumstances we should not be justified in taking measures for the North-Eastern Trading Estates which were not applicable to Development Areas as a whole. On our policy for promoting employment in these areas I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in the debates on 7th December, 1951, and 29th May, 1952.

Mr. Willey: Does the hon. and learned Member realise that this is a very depressing reply for the North-East Coast, and a far more depressing reply for the other Development Areas? For the past eight months we have had increased redundancy and continued pay-offs at these new factories. We think that this is a reversal of Government policy, and we want a reversion to the policy of the last Government.

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Member had listened, as I thought he did, to the last Adjournment debate on this subject, he would know that there has been no such change in policy.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in providing Government sponsored advance factories in the North-East Development Area; and what further proposals for advance factories are under consideration.

Mr. H. Strauss: The building of factories in the Development Areas in advance of demand was deferred indefinitely by the previous Government early in 1951. Shortage of steel and the need to restrict capital investment are such that we should not be justified in reversing the decision.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. and learned Member not realise that late in 1951 the late Administration agreed that we should proceed with at least two advance factories, and what has happened to these in view of the dangerous dependence on purely armament work in that area?

Mr. Strauss: I did deal with that in the debate to which I have referred, and the position is certainly not easier than it was when the late Administration came to its decision.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that important bodies like the North East Development Association point out that a definite undertaking was given by the late Administration late in 1951 that two factories should be proceeded with? Why have these not gone forward?

Mr. Strauss: I think that the whole House would agree that it would be quite monstrous to build factories in advance

of demand when present conditions make it impossible to build factories for which there is an existing demand.

Silver Hallmarks (Foreign Use)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that foreign firms are using British silver hallmarks; and what action he proposes to take to prevent this practice.

Mr. H. Strauss: I have seen this allegation in the Press and understand that the British interests concerned are about to submit a memorandum to the Board of Trade. We shall, of course, carefully consider, in the light of the evidence submitted, what action can appropriately be taken.

Wing Commander Bullus: Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that there is no widespread pirating of British marks on other articles?

Mr. Strauss: I think it would benefit the interests which I know my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind if we awaited the memorandum and then considered it.

Tobacco (Non-dollar Purchases)

Mr. Stokes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to increase the import of tobacco from non-dollar countries, particularly from Greece and Turkey.

Mr. Mackeson: All unmanufactured tobacco is bought on private account, but the amount of dollars made available for purchases from this season's North American crop will be very much less than last year. So long as our balance of payments situation so demands, this policy of restricting dollar purchases will be continued. The right hon. Member will appreciate that such a policy provides a strong inducement to use more non-dollar tobacco, including Greek and Turkish, and the amount used in recent years, particularly from the Commonwealth, has steadily increased. Licences to import such tobacco are freely granted.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, but the Minister is not correctly informed. Is he aware that the amount of imported tobacco from Greece has gone down by about 85 per cent. in the last year or so, and that from Turkey by about 75 per cent.; and


that the two added together at the present time only formed about 2 per cent, of what comes in from America? Would he answer my Question, which is: What is he doing about it? I know it is on private account, but what is he doing about it to see that more tobacco is imported from Greece and Turkey?

Mr. Mackeson: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am correctly informed and that consumption has gone up. It is true that purchases went down and that, as he should know, being a member of the last Administration, is due to the bad crop owing to drought in Southern Rhodesia last year. The crop is now very good, and private enterprise is buying large quantities. There will be more tobacco from Greece and Turkey used this year than in 1951, and the same applies to the year 1951 as compared with 1950.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, but I am not talking about Rhodesian tobacco, I am talking about tobacco from Greece and Turkey. It may be that the consumption of Rhodesian tobacco has gone up, but what I want to know is what he is doing about the sad slump in the purchases of Grecian and Turkish tobacco? There is an abundance of tobacco there, and he is incorrectly informed.

Mr. Mackeson: The right hon. Gentleman used the words, "non-dollar countries," which must be taken to include Southern Rhodesia. The restricted purchase of dollar tobacco will, we hope, have the effect of increasing the imports of Turkish and Grecian tobacco, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember that they have to be paid for in gold.

Mr. Stokes: Put up the value of gold and that will be all right.

Overseas Samples (Board of Trade Purchases)

Mr. Erroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of the samples of overseas goods purchased by him during 1951, and shown under head A4 of the Estimates for his Department together with details of their individual cost and subsequent disposal.

Mr. Mackeson: In the year 1951, £3200 was provided for the purchase of

samples of overseas goods by Trade Commissioners and Her Majesty's Commercial representatives, primarily to illustrate their reports on the market for consumer goods. During the year, 185 samples were purchased at a cost of £320, the individual costs ranging from 5s. to £10. Interested industries were notified when the reports were issued to their Trade Associations and through the Special Register Information Service that the samples were available for inspection, and I do not feel that it would be of assistance to exporters to publish a list of samples.
Normally samples become out of date and the collection is reviewed periodically. The samples are held by the Board of Trade in bond, free of customs Duty and Purchase Tax. Subsequent handling on exhibition renders the disposal value less than liability for Customs and Purchase Tax. Consent of the Treasury is obtained for disposal.

Canadian and Scottish Firms (Subsidiaries)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the names, nature and location of Canadian manufacturing companies, firms and partnerships which have branches in Scotland; and how many people each employs;
(2) the names, nature and location of Scottish manufacturing companies, firms and partnerships which have branches in Canada; and how many people each employs.

Mr. H. Strauss: Since the answer is somewhat long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this matter has been completely neglected since the present Government came into power? It is not even mentioned in the latest Report of Scottish industry in contrast to that for the preceding year which gave plenty of material which could have been followed up. What does the Government intend to do about it?

Mr. Strauss: I have not the slightest idea what the hon. and learned Member means by "this matter." The answer I gave was for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House who


have Questions to put to the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he has no idea of what I meant. May I make it clear that I was referring to Scottish trade with Canada?

Following is the answer:
So far as I am aware, there are two Canadian companies with factories in Scotland. These are Massey Harris, Limited, manufacturers of agricultural tractors, implements and combine harvesters at Kilmarnock, and Wall Colmonoy (Canada) Limited, manufacturers of corrosion resisting and hard facing alloys at Carfin.
The following Scottish companies have subsidiary or associate companies in Canada:—Messrs. Blackwood Morton and Sons, carpet and linoleum manufacturers of Kilmarnock; the Edinburgh Essence Company, manufacturers of flavouring extracts; the Astral Equipment Company and its associates, manufacturers of refrigerators; and Thomas Bonar and Company, an associate of the Low and Bonar group, the Dundee Jute Manufacturers.
Information about the numbers employed in each concern is supplied in confidence and cannot he disclosed.

Lobsters (French Purchases)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much currency has been allocated by the French Government for the purchase of British lobsters.

Mr. Mackeson: £4,000 was allocated in the second quarter of this year for the importation of lobster and other sea crustacea from the United Kingdom. The amount that will be allocated for the current quarter is being discussed with the French authorities.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Can my hon. Friend extend some hope that the amount received for the current quarter will be somewhat in excess of that not very large sum?

Mr. Mackeson: The French authorities have already invited applications for licences from their importers, and I hope that a decision as to the amount to be licensed will be reached within the next few days.

Paper Tube Industry

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the difficulties at present facing the paper tube industry in

this country as a result of the recession in the textile trade, he will review the present arrangement under which German paper tube makers are permitted to supply paper tubes to this country without any import licence, whilst the British paper tube industry is not permitted to purchase paper from Germany for the manufacture of paper tubes without first obtaining a licence;
(2) whether, in view of the present difficulties of the paper tube industry arising from the recession in the textile trade, he will review the present scale of Customs Duties applying to paper tubes and cones imported into this country, taking into account that the duty levied on such goods imported into Germany is 27 per cent. as against only 20 per cent. for importation into Great Britain.

Mr. Mackeson: Import restrictions are not imposed to protect domestic industries, and we are not aware that the British paper tube industry is being denied access to adequate supplies of paper. We have not received an application for the revision of the import duty charged on these goods, but we should naturally be prepared to consider, on its merits, any such application which the industry concerned might wish to put forward. I would, however, point out that the rate in the German tariff is 20 per cent. not 27 per cent. as stated in the Question.

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that assurance, may I ask if he realises that as a result of short-time working, the paper tube industry is losing many highly skilled operatives at the present time, and that this position is aggravated by the imports of German paper tubes and cones, and does he not think it would be better to stop this importation altogether?

Mr. Mackeson: We can reduce, but not completely abolish.

Cotton Imports (Quality)

Mrs. Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why import of shoddy cotton is permitted; from what countries; and in what amounts it is imported;
(2) in what way the consumer can recognise foreign shoddy; and if he will take steps to ensure identification between such and Lancashire cloth.

Mr. H. Strauss: I assume that the hon. Member is not using the word "shoddy" in the technical sense of recovered wool. There is no qualitative control of imports of cotton goods and figures relating to particular qualities are not available. An Order made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, requires foreign textile piece goods imported into the United Kingdom to be marked with an indication of origin, thus showing that they are of foreign manufacture.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware, if the term "shoddy" may not be used, that any rubbish made from inferior Indian cotton is coming into this country and is passing out as Lancashire cloth? Is he further aware that since the scrapping of the Utility scheme there is now no guarantee whatever in regard to reeds, cardings and pickings, and has the present Administration any idea of protecting the housewife and our trade from this shoddy administration?

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Lady has asked a number of supplementary questions to another Question which she has on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL LIST PENSIONS

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister if he will print in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the annual awards of Civil List pensions now being made.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): In accordance with statute the Civil List Pension list was laid on the Table in April.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that it used to be the custom to print these awards by the Stationery Office, and will he see that that practice is restored?

The Prime Minister: As the list was published three months ago, I do not think there is any reason for printing it in the OFFICIAL REPORT now. This is a matter in which there is no secrecy, but on the other hand undue publicity is not encouraged by convention and custom followed by both parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister what reductions in defence expenditure as compared with the original estimates are contemplated by the Government; and whether other Governments in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will be consulted.

The Prime Minister: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the debate which will take place next week.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is by no means original: it has been given on at least three occasions? Is it not desirable that we should be placed in possession of facts regarding the proposals of the Government before the debate so that we would know what we are to talk about, and also know what the Government are intending to talk about? We ought to have some facts into which we can get our teeth.

The Prime Minister: How can I, in the three-quarters of a minute which may perhaps remain to me, condense a statement of Government policy on this highly complicated matter?

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my Question? Is it intended to consult other Governments with whom we are associated in N.A.T.O.?

The Prime Minister: That point is fully covered by the answer which I gave originally.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the confusion in the Press arising out of the Prime Minister's last replies on this subject, would he at least inform the House whether he referred to grave and far-reaching "matters" or to grave and far-reaching "measures" when he was last questioned? Some newspapers took one view and some another, and I think that it would be extremely valuable to all of us to have that point cleared up.

The Prime Minister: I recognise the epithet, but I cannot, without further reference, be sure as to the noun.

HOUSE OF LORDS QUESTION (MEMBER'S COMPLAINT)

Mr. Benn: I rise to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of which I have given you previous notice. It is a matter which falls within the general question of Privilege. It has more properly to do with the good relations between this House and another place.
The matter with which I am concerned arose out of the decision of the South African Government to arrest a Mr. Sachs, the General Secretary of the Garment Workers' Union, as a result of which a letter of protest against this action was compiled and dispatched from this country signed by 108 Members of this House and eight Members of another place. As a result, I imagine, of that, a Question has appeared on the Order Paper of another place in the name of Lord Barnby which, with your permission, I will read. It says:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noted the protests of certain Socialist Members of Parliament in this country against the arrest of Mr. Sachs, the Trades Union Leader in South Africa, by the direction of the Government of the Union of South Africa, and whether they do not consider these protests a serious attempt to intervene in matters concerning the internal policy of another Commonwealth country.
I can well understand the attitude of lion. Members opposite. Yesterday a Motion in identical terms with the protest to which I have referred was put on the Order Paper by 73 hon. Members of this Ho use.

[That this House most strongly protests against the action of the South African Government in the proceedings which it has taken and is taking against Mr. E. S. Sachs, the General Secretary of the Garment Workers' Union, and other prominent trade union leaders; and regards this as a deliberate attempt to undermine trade unionism and political freedom in South Africa.]

The position now is that tomorrow, when another place comes to consider that Question, the action of Members of this House in signing the original protest and in putting a Motion on the Order Paper in this House will be brought into question and answer, and even, according to the provisions of procedure in another place, may be the subject of debate.

I venture to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if that were to occur it

might well constitute an infringement of the rights of this House. I cite to you three points. The first is the Ninth Article of the Bill of Rights, which says:
… the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be … questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
To that Erskine May adds the footnote on page 50:
This provision not only protects freedom of speech in Parliament from outside interference, but also indicates the method by which it may be controlled … by each House for its own members.
This unquestionably comes within the category of proceedings of Parliament, in that Erskine May on page 61 indicates that the meaning of proceedings is extended to any formal action of this House, including the giving of notices of Motion. I would also submit to you. Mr. Speaker, that in signing the original letter of protest it is opened to question—and I seek your guidance on this point—that the Members who signed that original protest were taking part in action so closely related to matters pending or expected to be brought before this House that they formed part of the business of this House.

I cite as the authority for that the Report of the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts which went into this question before the war. I should be grateful if you would indicate whether you would regard a debate in another place on this Motion tomorrow as being an infringement of the rights of Members or, at any rate, sufficient to constitute a discourteous act by one House against another.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was good enough to give me notice that he intended to raise this point, and I have given it careful consideration. The wording of the proposed Question to be asked tomorrow in another place does not refer to actions of this House, nor does it refer, nor can it refer, to the notice of Motion which the hon. Member placed on the Table last night, because the notice of the Question appeared in the Minutes of another place at an earlier date than that.
Therefore, the action that the hon. Member complains of does not in my view come into the category of words or acts which appear to implicate one House in discourtesy to another. It is


in effect, as I read it, a criticism in another place of conduct which is outside Parliament altogether. Therefore, it is not a Parliamentary proceeding so as to bring it within the rules of Privilege. As the hon. Member has correctly quoted from Erskine May, it is for each House to control its own Members so as to maintain those good relations which exist between the two Houses. It seems to me that the matter which the hon. Member has raised is a matter for the other House—a matter for the other place—and I personally would deprecate any proceeding calculated to impair the good relations which exist between us.

Mr. Benn: Would you give it as your Ruling or your opinion, Mr. Speaker, that in principle it is appropriate for a Question or a debate in one House to take place based on the actions of Members of another House? Would you not agree that that constitutes a discourtesy to one House by Members of another?

Mr. Speaker: I understood from the hon. Member himself that this manifesto or protest, or whatever it is called, was signed by Members of both Houses. Therefore, I cannot construe this Question placed on the Paper in another place as in any way an attack upon this House.

ANGLO-CZECHOSLOVAKIAN TRADE (TEXTILES)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

49. Mr. MACLEAN,—To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement regarding the recently concluded trade agreement with Czechoslovakia.

51. Mr. BorromLEv,—To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will

now make a statement about the recent Anglo-Czechoslovakian trade talks.

Mr. L. M. Lever: On a point of order. Last Thursday, with your consent, Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to the President of the Board of Trade on the question of the proposed contract between this country and Czechoslovakia in so far as it affected the importation of printed cotton. On the Order Paper there are these two vital Questions on this subject, which I think ought to be answered publicly today by the President of the Board of Trade as a matter of public importance and public information so that we may know exactly what he proposes to do in this matter. We are most anxious that there should be no importation of printed cottons into this country so long as there is such widespread unemployment in the textile industry in Lancashire.

Mr. Speaker: This is the old question. I am very sorry that we did not get to these Questions today, but I have repeatedly stated that unless before Question time the Minister specifically asks my leave to answer a Question, then it cannot be answered if it is not reached. The hon. Member will receive a written reply and on the basis of that he can act as he is advised.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Civil List Bill and the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 226.

Division No. 219.]
AYES
[3.40 p.m.


Aitken, W T.
Baldwin, A. E.
Bishop, F. P.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Banks, Col. C.
Black, C. W.


Alport, C. J. M.
Barber, Anthony
Bossom, A. C.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Barlow, Sir John
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baxter, A. B.
Boyle, Sir Edward


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Braine, B. R.


Arbuthnot, John
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)


Astor, Hon J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Brooman-White, R. C.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Browne, Jack (Govan)


Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Birch, Nigel
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. [...]




Bullard, D. G.
Horobin, I. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Hurd, A. R.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Channon, H.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Profumo, J. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Jennings, R.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, M.


Cole, Norman
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Kaberry, D.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roper, Sir Harold


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Crouch, R. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Cuthbert, W. N.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Scott, R. Donald


Davidson, Viscountess
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, William


De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Low, A. R. W.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Snadden, W. McN.


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Soames, Capt. C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, A. C. M.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Speir, R. M.


Duthie, W. S.
McAdden, S. J.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
McCallum, Major D.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Erroll, F. J.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Stevens, G. P.


Finlay, Graeme
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
McKibbin, A. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Storey, S.


Fort, R.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Foster, John
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Studholme, H. G.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Summers, G. S.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Gammans, L. D.
Markham, Major S. F.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marples, A. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Godber, J. B.
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maudling, R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Gough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Turner, H. E. L.


Gower, H. R.
Medlicolt, Brig. F.
Turton, R. H.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mellor, Sir John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Molson, A. H. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vosper, D. F.


Harden, J. R. E.
Mott-Radclyffe C. E.
Wade, D. W.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholls, Harmer
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hay, John
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Watkinson, H. A.


Heath, Edward
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wellwood, W.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nutting, Anthony
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, H. D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Odey, G. W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hollis, M. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wills, G.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Holt, A. F.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Wood, Hon. R.


Hope, Lord John
Osborne, C.



Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Partridge, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Conant.







NOES


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Poole, C. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hamilton, W. W.
Porter, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Hargreaves, A.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Balfour, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Pryde, D. J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Rankin, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Reeves, J.


Bence, C. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Benn, Wedgwood
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Benson, G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Rhodes, H.


Beswick, F.
Hoy, J. H.
Richards, R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William


Boardman, H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bowden, H. W.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Short, E. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Janner, B.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancres, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Slater, J.


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Snow, J. W.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Kennan, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon, C.
Steele, T.


Chapman, W. D.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Clunie, J.
Kinley, J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Collick, P. H.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Swingler, S. T.


Daines, P.
Lewis, Arthur
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McInnes, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Dodds, N. N.
McLeavy, F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Driberg, T. E. N.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thurtle, Ernest


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Timmons, J.


Edelman, M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomney, F.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mallallieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Usborne, H. C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Manuel, A. C.
Watkins, T. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Messer, F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fienburgh, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Finch, H. J.
Monslow, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morley, R.
Wigg, George


Follick, M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Foot, M. M.
Mort, D. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, A.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Murray, J. D.
Williams, David (Neath)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Nally, W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Gibson, C. W.
Orbach, M.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Gooch, E. G.
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Padley, W. E.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Pannell, Charles
Wyatt, W. L.


Gray, C. F.
Pargiter, G. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paton, J.



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Royle.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn]—put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[23 RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1952–53

CLASS VI

VOTE 14. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including expenses of the Transport Tribunal, the Transport Arbitration Tribunal, and sundry other services. [£850,000 has been voted on account.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT COMMISSION (ANNUAL REPORT)

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Barnes: I beg to move,
That this House notes with approval the Fourth Annual Report of the British Transport Commission as marking a further stage in providing an efficient public transport system through the integration of road and rail traffic under common ownership.
On previous occasions the Minister of Transport has accepted responsibility for moving a Motion to approve the Annual Report of the British Transport Commission. It is only right that the Commission should look to the Minister to be their voice in this Chamber and to answer any criticisms; but, of course, we all recognise that the present Minister of Transport is not there to support the British Transport Commission; he is there to destroy them if he gets the opportunity. One has only to look at the Amendment on the Order Paper to observe the somewhat churlish attitude of the Government towards this problem.
The Motion which I have moved consists of two parts. The first part is a very modest expression of approval, and the second part is a statement of fact. One would have thought that the Government could at least have accepted that modest acknowledgement of a very fine piece of work done by a number of business men who have had no part in the political controversies that surround this matter, but who have done a very fine piece of transport reorganisation.
The Government Amendment proposes to remove from our Motion this indication of the approval of this House and to substitute the following words:
while recognising the efforts of the British Transport Commission and the Executives. …
Efforts can be good or they can be bad, but I certainly consider that the efforts of this Government in matters of transport have been very bad indeed. The second point in the Amendment is that the Government believes that the Commission
were entrusted by the Transport Act of 1947 with an impossible task, the attempt to discharge which has seriously impeded the interchange of goods and services throughout Great Britain.
I suggest that it is up to the Minister and those who support his policy to prove those words, and certainly there is no evidence in the Report we are discussing here today to support that contention.
I want, first, to quote what I consider is quite an impartial opinion of a transport journal on this matter of
an impossible task, the attempt to discharge which has seriously impeded the interchange of goods and services throughout Great Britain.
The Minister cannot very well complain about this transport journal because his own photograph figures in it and he has sent a message of congratulation to it. It is not concerned with any particular aspect of transport. It is a transport-minded journal, but is not pro-railway, pro-road, pro-water or pro-air. In dealing with this Annual Report, it says of British Railways and of the Railway Executive:
On the railways there was a consistent improvement in the use of equipment and staff. The efficiency of freight working is best reflected in 'net ton-miles hauled per total freight engine hour,' which have risen from 461 in 1938 to 595 in 1951. This is the highest level of efficiency yet produced for freight operation in this small and crowded country. The improvement since pre-war is some 30 per


cent. It has been achieved in spite of inadequate capital re-equipment. The steady progress during the last four years is due largely to measures taken to unify operations on a national basis, to eliminate uneconomic routeing dictated by the old territorial interests, and to remove other barriers to efficiency which formerly existed.
That is the view of practical transport operators in this country after four years' administration by the Railway Executive. It is a disgraceful political act and does not redound to the credit of any Government or any party that they should ignore practical transport opinion, destroy a solid business effort of this description and throw a vital transport industry back once more into the chaos that characterised it in the first half of this century. I will now read to the House what this Journal says about the road haulage organisation. It states:
Although the organisation was absorbing almost 1,000 undertakings during the earlier part of 1951, the proportion of totally empty running diminished, the average load per vehicle increased, and the number of complaints declined. The number of packages forwarded in 1951 is estimated to be of the order of 250 million.
Therefore, I suggest that there is no ground, except that of political prejudice, for the Amendment which the Government propose to move to our Motion.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will my right hon. Friend kindly tell us the name of the journal from which he is quoting?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, it is "Transport Management." As 10 months of the period covered in this Report was within my own administration, I feel it incumbent upon me to voice public appreciation of the work of the British Transport Commission, of the various Executives who have carried out their task, of the staff which has co-operated, and also of the leaders of the transport unions who have assisted. It is a pity that the Minister seeks to destroy instead of assist a very good piece of re-organisation and rationalisation in our post-war difficulties.
The next point is that these Executives have accomplished the results which are shown and proven in this Report in the face of very formidable difficulties. I recognise that all industrial managements in this country in the post-war period have not had a very easy task, and, of course, it is the general practice of people

engaged in business to get on with their job and not talk as much as we do in this House.
I have emphasised on more than one occasion that the railways have not only had to confront the general run of difficulties but they have had to meet exceptional difficulties. In considering these matters, it is only right that we should refresh our memories from time to time, because when the party opposite had the responsibility of forming the Opposition they never missed an opportunity of misrepresenting this problem and so confusing the public mind.
The Railway Executive—and it would have been the same with any kind of management—had to run their services with their physical assets exhausted to a far greater extent than prevailed generally throughout industry. They had a still more difficult task because the conditions of the rolling stock could be observed by the general public. The travelling public recognised from the decisions of the Government and from debates in this House on the problems that the railways could not restore and were not being permitted to restore the quality of their service to the extent that they would have liked.
The Railway Executive also had an even more difficult psychological problem to solve in relation to the public. In the whole field of commodities there was a rapid rise in prices, and it is only natural that there should be deeply embedded in the views, instincts and reactions of the average person in this country an antagonism towards any form of rise in prices.
The machinery which has prevailed in the making of railway charges, which is of a historical nature and for which Parliament carries complete responsibility, led to an exaggerated reaction on the part of the public towards an increase in railway charges. That reaction was also exaggerated because the railway management had to tackle the unenviable task of adjusting their level of charges to the level of cost to the community after the war.
In their political campaigns the party opposite directly fostered and aggravated that reaction of the community, to what I thought was a very unfair extent, against those who had to carry on the administration of our railways. The railways are a vital element in our economic life and


whoever is responsible for their management is entitled to the sympathetic understanding of hon. Members of this House.
The third difficulty which the railway management had to meet was the need, in the national interest, to restrict capital expenditure. Anyone who has had the responsibility of carrying out that policy as a member of the Government knows how difficult it is to enforce it over a vast variety of unconnected units and businesses. Purchases of steel and timber are very large items in an industry like the railway industry, whether it is under one or four managements, and it is very easy for any Government to look in the direction of the railways for the achievement of some success in a policy of restricting capital investment. In the case of the railways, whose accounts are made public, it was quite easy for Government policy in that direction to become effective. I consider that the railways have suffered much more than the average industry from the operation of that policy.
The Road Haulage Executive had to confront an entirely different set of problems. Because of the factors which I have already mentioned, the railways were prevented from expanding and modernising their services; but road transport vehicles came on to the market much more readily and easily, with greater freedom from restrictions, than was the case with railway equipment. It is easy to understand why that should be so.
While the Government, quite naturally, aimed to divert as many transport vehicles as possible to the export market, nevertheless we cannot control world affairs, and every now and again, through the blocking of import licences or by some other Government decision elsewhere, lorries piled up in this country and were subsequently released on to the home market. The result has been that the number of lorries that have come on to the roads in the post-war period has been increasing steadily.
The supply of vehicles has not been the problem here. The problem has been one of rationalisation. This country cannot afford to waste any of its physical assets. It must direct its attention more and more to obtaining greater output, not only from labour but from capital resources which we put into plant and

equipment. Therefore, the policy which we followed in the first half of this century, of allowing capital resources to flow to an unnecessary extent into wasteful and redundant transport services, in the last resort does not bring any advantage in any direction to any part of our national economy.
It has followed that, as opposed to pro-road and pro-railway opinion, transport people have directed their minds towards bringing about a more efficient and more economical use of our transport assets. The Road Haulage Executive were faced with the largest rationalisation process that any industry has been called upon to undertake. According to paragraph 7 of the British Transport Commission's Fourth Annual Report, in a period of three years—they did not commence to function until the end of 1948 —the Road Haulage Executive have had to take over, partly by voluntary agreement and partly by process of acquisition, 3,766 undertakings and mould them into a national network of road delivery services.
Some of these vehicles and undertakings were acquired by voluntary ageement, which represents the sanctity of free contract. Others were acquired by the Parliamentary process of compulsion. They created a nation-wide organisation. The quality and standard of the Road Haulage Executive's fleet is much higher than it was under private enterprise. This is not a question of political prejudice. Anyone who drives on the highways of this country has been able to see in the last year or two that, without any qualification or dispute, not only the garages and depots but the vehicles running on the highways are of a much higher standard, and all the figures that represent the test of efficiency support the view that I have put forward.
Therefore, I say that the Road Haulage Executive has done a remarkable task and I should have thought that hon. Members would have been proud of the result. We are proud of any advance we may make in the technical field, in civil aviation, engineering, shipping or in some other direction, and when any task is performed that lifts the prestige of this country we all take a natural pride in the accomplishment. I do not think that anywhere in the world in the post-war period has any body of men been able


to rationalise any industry with such ease, efficiency and economy as the Road Haulage Executive have done.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the much higher standard of the industry, but does he recollect that when he was on this side of the House there was an Adjournment debate in which I reminded him that there had been rises in charges in a particular instance of from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent.?

Mr. Barnes: I have never evaded the fact that transport charges must go up with the increase in the general level of prices. It is useless to avoid an issue of that kind. But I do say that transport charges in this country in the post-war period have not moved up to the same extent as the general level of prices; and that, in my view, is the test.
As to the increases in the charges of the Road Haulage Executive, they were in total the same increases as were authorised by the Road Haulage Association in respect of the private hauliers. Any operator of C licence vehicles will also frankly admit that the cost of running a C licence fleet has increased very substantially over the pre-war figures. Therefore, I say that the businessmen have done very well indeed.
I do not intend to occupy a lot of time in my opening remarks, but there are one or two points that I should like to emphasise. There is so much material in this Report that hon. Members in all parts of the House have ample opportunity to deal more fully with other matters than possibly I should wish to do. I want to say a few words on the financial aspect of the matter. In paragraph 28 of the Report, the British Transport Commission have done a very good piece of work in setting out very clearly the financial details of the past four years' administration. I think it is essential that we should get these figures clearly in our minds.
I have always been opposed to the introduction of subsidies into this field of transport. I recognise that there is plenty of room for differences of opinion, both within my own party and elsewhere, but I have always been definitely opposed to the introduction of a subsidy, and I have never yet seen any evidence in the figures to convince me that at the moment a

subsidy is necessary. On the other hand, I have taken the view that many obligations and burdens have been put on the railways that do not legitimately belong there. Other interests have shifted their responsibilities on to the railways. I have long held the view that highways, Service travel, level crossings and a variety of matters of that description needed rectification in the interests of the railways.
Taking the overall position, I want to recall these figures because it is desirable that they should go on record. The British Transport Commission point out that the working surplus that they have made on the whole of their undertaking in four years amounted to £165 million. Any group of business companies that had a working surplus of £165 million would not be described in the public Press or by any Member of Parliament as having made a loss on their undertaking. That figure represents an average of £41 million a year. In those four years, after meeting the central charge for interest and administration, etc., they have built up a deficiency of £40 million.
Of that £40 million, £13£ million represented the capital redemption charge and is in no way a hopeless and irremedial loss. Therefore, the total deficiency on their trading receipts of £2,200 million in four years is only £25 million or £26 million. Anyone who knows anything about figures of this description should appreciate that a loss of £26 million on a turnover of £2,200 million, after paying interest at the rate of about £40 million a year, does not represent a deficiency that is difficult to meet. If this House would give the British Transport Commission the support that it needs and deserves, that problem could easily be overcome.
In this 1951 Report, the British Transport Commission have balanced their accounts. Immediately they do so, the Government start a deliberate policy to unbalance their accounts. That is what we have witnessed in the last few months. It must have been known by the Government at Easter this year that the 1951 accounts were in balance and represented a slight surplus. It must also have been known to the Government that if the policy that had been sanctioned by the Tribunal and which had been proceeding in the normal way had been allowed


to continue, the British Transport Commission would have continued to balance their accounts and would have been able to commence writing off that deficiency of £40 million.
Instead of that, from Easter onwards we have seen the Government following a policy and making a series of definite decisions that could have no other purpose than to ruin the situation and to unbalance the accounts of the British Transport Commission. I know of no similar policy that has ever been followed by a Government of this country—deliberately to try to unbalance one of our vital and basic industries.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: Are we to gather from what the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he strongly disapproves of the reductions in fares which have taken place?

Mr. Barnes: I made my position clear when we debated this matter on a previous occasion. During the hearings of the Tribunal, the Minister has—and had —power to represent the views of the Government. Anyone with the knowledge of the relationship of a Minister to industry knows very well that if the Minister had discussed with the British Transport Commission the question of the discretionary powers which the Tribunal had left with them, it is inconceivable that the Commission would have ignored the views of the Government. I have never pretended that an administration cannot make mistakes. I can declare publicly that, as far as I am concerned, the changing in the fare stages at the same time as there was an increase in fares sanctioned by the Tribunal, represented bad judgment. Those matters could have been represented to the Commission.
But to secure modifications and to express public opinion in Parliament and elsewhere is entirely different from a series of decisions which undermine the financial stability of the Commission. No one can argue with the information which the British Transport Commission has displayed in diagram No. 7 on page 27 of the Report that the British Transport Commission have sought a solution of all their difficulties by turning readily to an increase in fares—and they could not do that in any case, for the Tribunal would stop them.
If we look at the figures for 1951 and compare them with those for 1939, we find that the increase in road passenger fares was 77 per cent.; the increase in freight charges was 99 per cent.; but the cost to the railways went up by 150 per cent.—a gap of 57 per cent. It is quite clear that with charges of that kind the Commission could not in any way have achieved a balance in 1951 without making substantial economies. Therefore, as these figures disclose that substantial economies have been secured, I claim that there is no case for the Government's Amendment to our Motion.
The only other point upon which I 'want to touch is the disposal of assets. If we look at the relevant paragraphs in the Commission's Report, we see once again the value of an overall policy body like the British Transport Commission in relation to the various branches of transport. It is not until one gets a body which is detached from the day-to-day management and operation of affairs that one can bring to bear an impartial and neutral view, so that it can be decided which are the redundant and obsolete parts of any particular service under the administration of that body.
In the paragraphs which deal with the disposal of assets, we see the operation of a piece of machinery which is vitally needed, if we can get it, in all aspects of our national life today—the cutting out of obsolete parts of the machine and the wiping out of redundant assets which public taste and use have already thrown aside. When we had separate managements none of them would give up any of these particular things. They wasted their resources, and that all went into the ultimate cost of the service. They wasted their resources because they could not bring themselves to cut down, thinking that to do so would reflect on their administration and be taken as evidence of defeat. But here we see the cutting out and removal of wasting and redundant assets.
I end by making an appeal, not to the parties in this House, but to the great business community outside, who have a vital need for the transport industry, particularly an industry which is integrated and complementary instead of ruinous and antagonistic. I hope that in the time we have to reflect between now and another Session of Parliament.
the business community will make known their views to this Government.

4.26 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am sure that the whole House, without distinction of party, will be glad to see once more in his place my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) my immediate predecessor at the Ministry of Transport. If I may be allowed to speak on a personal note, I should like to say once more that the respect and affection which he inspired whilst at the Ministry of Transport have made my difficult task a great deal easier. His good health today makes me wonder whether we could not make some working arrangement, week in and week out, to conduct the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation together.
I welcome the speech made by the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes). He is always scrupulously fair in debate. When he was at the Ministry of Transport he made a great reputation for himself by the way in which he administered that Department and the various Acts under which British Transport is controlled. There was the Act of 1930 which, though it was introduced by the Labour Government of the day, would otherwise have been introduced by a Conservative Government had they been elected, and on which no Division was taken. That Act, incidentally, I believe, witnessed the first Front Bench speech in the House which was read from start to finish and which led to the interjection by Jack Jones whether he would be in order in moving a vote of thanks to the typist. The Act of 1933, though challenged when it was introduced by Oliver Stanley, represented, by and large, a broad measure of national agreement.
I welcome the speech of the right hon. Gentleman but I disagree with him in two particulars, though I do not challenge him very seriously on either of them. The first is his suggestion that in some way I have failed in my duty by not recommending to the House of Commons this Report of the Transport Commission. The sooner we get back to the practice of the Government of the day being able to recommend to the House in the old form—which I recognise that the Labour

Party followed in 1949 and 1950—that the House take note of the report of a nationalised body, the better it will be for all concerned. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall be very glad when the time-table allows that procedure to be adopted; but at the moment his party is excessively rich in Supply Days and the Government are very limited as to time.
My only other criticism is that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that we had set out at Easter of this year deliberately to unbalance the accounts of the Commission. He recognised, in reply to a supplementary question, that the alteration in fare stages and the fare increases at the same time was not a happy thing and he left us to wonder what action he would have taken if he had had the responsibility. I do not doubt for a moment that his action would have been exactly the same as that which was taken.
If he is prepared to say that the Labour Party would have left these disproportionate charges imposed on the people of London and outside without any use of the Minister's powers of direction, that hardly squares with the consistent questioning to which I and my right hon. Friend were subjected during the period when the review of our attitude towards the fares structure was taking place. Apart from those two issues, I do not quarrel with what the right hon. Gentleman said.
I join with him in paying a tribute to the members of the Commission and the Executives, who have rendered great service to this country. Of the Chairman of the British Transport Commission, I want to say that it will be a bad day for Great Britain when someone with his integrity, courage, independence of mind and readiness to say what he thinks ceases to be ready or available to take part in national service. I appreciate my contact with Lord Hurcomb and with all his Commission and also with the Executives. I appreciate my contact with some hon. Members opposite, but that does not always mean that I have to agree with everything they say.
No body of people could have put more enthusiasm and work than these people have done into the administration of an Act, and any criticism which we make is not of the spirit which they have brought to their task or the way in which they


have discharged it, but is of the terms of reference which the Act included and to which they have throughout been committed. I would say this about the Transport Act of 1947; that even the most fearsome critics of the present Government's new Transport Bill—the independent critics, that is; I am not referring for the moment to the Socialist Party all unite in saying that drastic transformation of the 1947 Act is absolutely necessary.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Commission have given us a very interesting Report. It is a very good Report and a very well-written Report. Perhaps it is a shade more biography than history, but at this minute I do not altogether quarrel with that form. It is, indeed, a very well-written Report. Thomas Carlyle said—and this is no reflection on the members of the Commission,
A well-written Life is almost as rare as a well-spent one.
This is a well-written Life, and we welcome it.
I do not protest over-much if here and there it is clear that the Commission's Report this year has been written with the Government's Transport Bill in mind. Indeed, it is perhaps true that the publication of the Transport Bill and the White Paper may have helped all those who have brought this Report to fruition to clear their minds and to clarify certain issues, for, of course, since the publication of the White Paper there has been considerable consultation between myself, my colleagues, my Department and the British Transport Commission and, as I say, I have very much valued this consultation.
It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Government of the day come in for a number of references throughout the Commission's Report—rather oblique references—dealing with shortages of material and delays in coming to a decision. It will not have escaped the House, I think, that for 10 months of the year under review the Government of the day who are censured in this mild way are, in fact, a Government in which the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister.

Mr. Percy Collick: Would the right hon. Gentleman also agree that possibly the Government themselves have learned very much more since they had these consultations than they

knew when they prepared the White Paper?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not deny that at all; it shows the value of consultations and it reinforces the point which I quoted from the right hon. Member for East Ham, South, when I made a long speech on the White Paper, which I hope not to exceed in length today—the point about the difficulty of having that sort of consultation in advance of the Government coming to certain definite conclusions on matters of principle. As I say, for 10 months of the year under review the Government of the day were led by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. James Callaghan: I should like to follow up this point. Why is it difficult to have consultation about matters of principle? Does not the determination of those principles partially depend on the facts which underlie them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could not have put it better or, probably, more briefly, than did the right hon. Member for East Ham, South, on two occasions—the Second Reading and the Third Reading of the Transport Bill in 1947; and I quoted from the right hon. Gentleman at length. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) would like me to quote those words again, I can do so towards the end of the debate.

Mr. Barnes: I seldom like to interrupt, but the right hon. Gentleman has twice referred to my statement. I must make it clear that at all stages I had the most extensive consultations with all sections of industry, both before and during the proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman made the position quite plain in the statement of which I reminded the House. He explained the difficulties which faced the Government of the day in consulting on what form the industry should take in advance of the publication of the Bill.
I welcome, as did the right hon. Gentleman, the achieving by the Commission this year of financial equilibrium, and they certainly deserve congratulation on that. I join with them in the hope that, for those activities which will remain part of the nationalised or centralised Commission, there will be oppor-


tunities in future years to put money on one side, as Lord Hurcomb has himself wished, for replacements and things of that kind. I would also remind the House that any monopoly which is under the obligation to make ends meet, and has the ability to prepare charges schemes to do so, is in a position somewhat more favoured than that of the large range of private enterprise.
None the less, I think the Commission certainly deserve congratulation on a vastly improved year's working, which is shown, in particular, in the improvements in figures for railway freight and passenger services and the handling by the railways of this largely increased traffic. Certain desirable economies have been made this year, to which the Commission rightly draw attention, and I think the attention of Parliament should also be drawn to them, for I venture to think that some of them carry some doubts and uncertainties with them.
We welcome, of course, the closing of redundant branch lines which are not fulfilling a useful purpose and are not justifying the large expense involved, and the Commission have told us that a saving of some £900,000 a year may be achieved through this action. We welcome central purchases where central purchases lead to definite economies, although even here I think a warning note should be struck. Anybody associated with any business knows that there comes a point when an increase in bulk purchase does not give a corresponding reduction in price but leads to a series of other problems—problems of storage and of local feeling—which have to be considered and which apply some qualifying marks to the advantages of bulk purchase.
Turning to standardisation, undoubtedly certain good results to the railways have ensued, but I think hon. Members would be surprised if they knew the number of times I am hearing people say that British locomotives, for example, used to provide a most fruitful field for individual design which had reactions and repercussions all over the world; and standardisation can be carried so far that that desirable opening may be dried up.
We all welcome, I think, the mechanisation of the permanent way processes, to which the Report draws attention, and

above all we welcome the efficiency index to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred, which showed that last year was the highest ever reached for operations in Britain—595 net ton miles per total engine hour. The right hon. Gentleman said this was mentioned, and rightly so, in glowing terms in a transport journal and I can tell him that it is not just because this transport journal published my photograph that makes me pay a tribute to the paper and even more to those whose contributions have made that result possible.
But I want the House to realise that the achievements of the British Transport Commission as shown in this Annual Report are all the achievements of separate transport activities. This is really the crux of the whole matter. These are reports of separate activities. The whole purpose of the 1947 Act was to integrate all transport activities. Improvements in separate transport services, however welcome and desirable, are no answer to the problems posed in the 1947 Act.
The need, as hon. Gentlemen opposite then said, to have an integrated transport system through the United Kingdom, was alone the justification for taking away the livelihood of a large number of private hauliers. It was not that the Road Haulage Executive would produce, as a separate entity, a good return. I wish they had been able to do so. It was because, by the owners' being deprived of their opportunities and their work, they would be contributing to an integrated transport system. That was the whole purpose of the operation. The achievements in the separate entities, valuable as they are, are no answer as to whether or not the Transport Act of 1947 has fulfilled its purpose.
I shall come, as I am bound to do, to a little more detail on that theme, for it is the absolute failure in the realm of integration, despite all the effort put into it—and the very magnitude of the effort shows how impossible the task is to achieve—that is the justification for a new approach which forces upon the Government of the day the obligation to introduce a new Transport Bill.

Mr. James Harrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that three years is a fair time upon which to express that very strong judgment?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should not like to say that if the world could stop still to enable theories to be worked out and to see whether a blue-print would succeed as its authors hope, it might not be a good thing to have a few more years' experience. The world cannot stop still, and meanwhile trade, industry, and agriculture in Britain, and the ordinary life of everyday people, are being deprived, because of the failure of the system of integration, of a service which we believe they could enjoy. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me a little more time, I will come to the justification of what I have said.
In regard to these separate services, I agree that those responsible are entitled to take credit, and the House will give them credit, for the way in which they have done their work, but, except for the Road Haulage Executive, the people who are doing the work on the Railway Executive, the Road Passenger Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, the Hotels Executive and the London Passenger Transport Executive are the same people as were doing the job before.
They are the same people on the line, the same railway technicians, the same key men, as were there before nationalisation. They are there now, and they will be there in the new world of railway de-centralisation. Those are the people who have achieved these results. I cannot believe that anybody would be so naïve as to claim that the mere fact of setting up a central organisation has suddenly been responsible for immense improvements. Post-war conditions and the ever-broadening scientific knowledge applied to railways, would have brought all this about.
One is forced to strike a discordant note in regard to road services. The real profit in road operations is coming from those passenger services which, though owned by the British Transport Commission from the shareholding angle, are operated by the original operators; so there is very little politics to be made out of any charge of that kind. I do not permit myself to make any politics in my reply. In regard to the separate entities, which we more and more tend to discuss, in place of the integrated transport which was the only justification for the Socialist Bill of 1947—

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman uses the term "integration" repeatedly as a justification for his approach to the results of the operation of the British Transport Commission's services. Would he not agree that the term has a valid application not only over the whole field of British transport but within each field, and that there was a need for integration not only between road and rail, but on road and on rail and in every branch of transport?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot by any means accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I should like to give a partial answer. If I answered in detail, I should take time off my main answer. In regard to the railways, the people who know best how to integrate road and rail services are the local people. What we propose to do is to give more power to the railway regions.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: We cannot do it that way.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In regard to road integration, what does the hon. Gentleman suggest? That the 40,000 vehicles nationalised by the Road Haulage Executive should take over the 950,000 vehicles that are free? Without that, there can be no real integration. Does he seriously suggest that the whole million or so vehicles should be handed over to the Road Haulage Executive, after the Annual Report that we have had?

Mr. I. O. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the road transport services are to function effectively. He presumes that because there has already been acquisition of a certain part of the road services, welded into what we claim on this side has proved to be an efficient, effective and economic service, there is no need for any further integration but rather the contrary, and that we must break down that which has already become integrated.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will come to the breaking down. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not read the Report of the Road Haulage Executive which itself lays out proposals for breaking down the integration that the Executive have been busily engaged in building up over the last three years. I was coming to the other point, which I think is important, about the


general aspect of transport in these various separate entities.
Transport is a service, and is not an industry. The sooner that gets into the heads of some people, the better. We can judge a factory, a firm or agriculture, and their success, by the level of their production, but transport does not create the goods. It carries them, and provides service. The test of an efficient organisation is not so much, "How much does it carry" but, "Does it carry the goods in the swiftest and the cheapest way to suit the trade and industry of the nation and the needs of the ordinary travelling public?"

Mr. Sparks: The answer is "Yes."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The test is not, "Is the system good on paper?" but, "Does it work out well in practice?" By this test we are in a position to judge the Act of 1947, and by that test the Act has undoubtedly failed. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen will have many opportunities of arguing the contrary. They have one opportunity today and I am prepared to enter the lists with them. They will have many other opportunities later on in the year, and no doubt we shall have much of what I hope will be good-natured controversy on that issue. I would ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite during this part of my speech to confine their minds to their Motion, which justifies this Report of the Commission
as marking a further stage in providing an efficient public transport system through the integration of road and rail traffic under common ownership.
How ridiculously untrue, as a statement of the existing situation or of any foreseeable situation.
What is the situation? British Road Haulage Services own 41,000 vehicles, and the A, B and C licence holders 912,000 vehicles. How can anyone seriously talk about the integration of road transport? Does anybody suggest that we should go further and bring all those A, B and C vehicles within the nationalist maw? Does anybody really suggest that? It would be very interesting to know.
Again, have we got integration in regard to passenger services? Why, even my predecessor, the Minister of Transport in the Labour Government, I know was far from satisfied with the working

of the passenger area schemes, and I do not think there has been much quarrel with my decision that, as from 30th September next, the Road Passenger Executive—to whom we are grateful for the work they have done—shall be dissolved and its activities brought to an end.
We are most grateful for what they have done, but we have decided, when the Bill becomes law, to abolish the scheme-making power, and as the right hon. Gentleman was himself far from satisfied with the area passenger schemes, I do not think anybody can argue that there has been integration in that field. The widespread opposition by local authorities of all political parties, and by the unions in many cases, to the northeastern area passenger integration scheme, the south-western area scheme and the East Anglian scheme all show that in the field of passenger integration "nothing doing" was the inevitable conclusion, even of the Commission and even of the right hon. Gentleman.
Now, if it is wrong in regard to passenger integration, why should it become a sacrosanct idea in the case of freight integration? In their Report, in Paragraphs 5 and 111, and in various other places, the Commission themselves recognise the great difficulties with which they have been confronted in regard to integration. It is, I think, fair to say that all the difficulties which the 1947 Act was meant to solve now remain—unless by "integration" hon. Gentlemen opposite mean absorption of one section of the transport system in another.
It is reassuring for once to be able to quote "The Times," and indeed the "Economist," in support of what I have to say. I was interested to see that "The Times" a few days ago—and I see no reason why we should not also make "The Times" and the "Economist" quotations into a leaflet and distribute them—in the leading article, and in the "Economist" issue immediately after the publication of the Report—and I am referring at this moment to their comments on the Commission's Report—said that the Commission appeared to glance back nostalgically
almost with signs of affection to the war days when `restrictions placed on road haulage' gave the railways an exceptional volume of traffic which helped them to earn exceptionally high receipts for every loaded train mile.


"The Times" added that it might almost be said that
in running road and rail together the Commission would like to load the railways at the expense of road transport.
Now this may be understandable. It may be what hon. Gentlemen opposite want. But it is certainly not integration. It is not integration, unless by integration is meant the swallowing of one industry by another, or the curtailing of that industry even though the travelling and trading public want it. This is certainly not making transport the servant of the community, but it is making some blue-print the master of the whole community.

Mr. Collick: When the right hon. Gentleman decides to publish what the "Economist" has said, would he include this part, which refers to the action for which the right hon. Gentleman himself was responsible? The "Economist" said on 19th April:
The Government's action has made nonsense of any supposition that the Conservatives have a policy for transport.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that particular quotation was already in the Labour Party pamphlet which was being produced by the hundred thousand. I would not have given way to the hon. Gentleman if I had known that that was the only purpose of his intervention.
The Road Haulage Executive—whose affairs, by the form in which the right hon. Gentleman himself started the debate, are being discussed as separate issues—has also worked very hard in the year, but all experience shows that there has been little or no integration. Nor, indeed, can anyone, I am afraid, pretend that they have had a very successful year. The transport of passengers and freight by the railways was up in 1951; the national productivity index last year was up by 5½ per cent.; but the Road Haulage Executive, which has had a near-monopoly for its operations [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly. That is the whole purpose of the operation: the right to take over everybody in long-distance haulage. If the C licensees were left out, it was because of political reasons and the pressure of the Co-operative Party on their own right hon. Friend.
The Road Haulage Executive, with a near-monopoly of long-distance haulage, and the right to raise its freights alongside the Road Haulage Association, last year

increased its carriage by 0.98 per cent. The Commission talk from time to time of the railways having the cream of their traffic removed. But who is removing the cream of the traffic from the Road Haulage Executive; and what, in fact, is happening meanwhile to private operators? Private operators—and I am more concerned, indeed mainly concerned, with the service that they render to the community rather than to the industry itself, important though that is—are bound and confined by the 1933 Act and by the 25-mile limit, so there is not much room for expansion there.
What happened last year again in the case of C licensees? About two weeks ago we had a long debate, but we had not then got the figures for 1951. The figures for 1951 show a continuation of exactly the same story. In 1948 there were 591,000 C licences, in 1949 there were 672,000, in 1950 there were 733.000, and last year, 1951, there were 796,000—an increase of 8.6 per cent. If hon. Members opposite try to suggest that this is merely the little delivery van, let us see where the increase has come. As to 7.9 per cent. it has come in vehicles not exceeding 2½ tons, but 12 per cent. of the increase has come in vehicles exceeding 2½ tons.
It cannot be put down to the small local tradesman's van. That is why the tonnage carried by the Road Haulage Executive is the same as it was last year. It was 46,500,000 tons last year and it is 46,900,000 tons this year. Manifestly, with the trade index up, with railway receipts up, and with this large increase in C licences, the Road Haulage Executive, despite all their efforts, are not able to keep their share of the market.

Mr. Cecil Poole: Mr. Cecil Poole (Birmingham, Perry Barr) rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot give way again.
The market should surely be settled by the wishes of the people engaged in the industry and trade of Britain. There is a most significant phrase at page 34 in the Commission's Report, where they talk of what would have happened if there had been no Road Haulage Executive, and they said that the existence of the Road Haulage Executive last year restrained the further "creaming" of the long-distance traffic. Is that integration?
This industry needs that sort of traffic. Should it be prevented from getting it? Who has the right to say that an act which they call "creaming" is anti-social if, in fact, it responds to the needs and urges of the trading and ordinary community in Britain? Meanwhile, we all know—indeed, I think hon. Gentlemen opposite would not deny it—that in many cases there are much longer delays in goods arriving at their destination than used to happen before.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman can make his speech later.

Mr. Callaghan: I must point out—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No. I have given way at least a dozen times.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman has not given any evidence at all for his statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to make his speech this evening, because I imagine that he will undoubtedly be lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Meanwhile, we are bound to draw attention to the overheads of the Road Haulage Executive. As I said, despite all their efforts they are not able to hold their share or increase it on the market. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that last year they acquired another 1,333 vehicles, yet the tonnage carried remained the same. At the same time as they acquired that large number of vehicles, carrying with them a staff of 2,919, there was an enormous increase in their staff—1,753. I would not wish to make too much of the charge that it does not need anybody behind the lines to get a vehicle into action, but I cannot believe that an increase of that kind and a new acquisition of 1,700 is really necessary to deal with an industry which has added only 1,333 vehicles in the course of a year.
If the hon. Member for Cardiff, SouthEast—who is no more ready than I am to give way, and I have given way a great deal this afternoon—has the time between now and when he speaks tonight to look at some of the old issues of a magazine which, I imagine, he does not despise—

"The Road Way"—he will find in the July issue the accounts, in an abbreviated form, of nine firms which were rail-controlled before nationalisation.
I myself gave this answer in reply to the hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons. In case the hon. Gentleman should think that I deliberately inspired it, I would say that the answer was quite uninspired. These nine firms, over the years under review, made a profit of £772,309, after charging depreciation but before charging tax, applicable to the shareholdings. I ask hon. Gentlemen, while they are away for two months from this House, to ponder on figures like that before they regard the fabric of the Road Haulage Executive, which is only three or four years' old, as something which cannot possibly be touched without grave national disservice.
I am glad that the vehicles are better vehicles. We are all very glad that they are. We must remember that a great many of the vehicles were taken over after the war and had suffered during the war a prolonged period of high pressure on roads for which no funds were available.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Many of them were a public danger.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) talked about, "a pretty poor hag of assets" when the railways were taken over. Although Lord Hurcomb does not use that phrase, he draws attention to the fact that if we cannot get the materials to bring the machinery up-to-date the assets are bound to deteriorate. Hon. Members opposite say that too much was given for vehicles not worth the cash. That was the fault of the Government who made the bargain and of no one else.
I would commend to the House page 123 of the Report, which shows that there is a plan by the Road Haulage Executive to break up their fleet so that the existing eight geographical divisions would control some 50 districts, each mainly a self-contained trading entity; so they themselves, by the logic of events, have been driven to the conclusion that a large national monopoly is wholly unsuited to the road haulage needs of the country.
It would have been quite impossible for any Government to have viewed a situation like this and to have taken no counter-action. If we had left the 1947 Act to continue on its way, wandering on, without alteration or amendment, certain things would certainly have happened. There would have been a steady increase in C licences, which no one denies might, in certain circumstances be uneconomic in their consequences. There would, I suppose, have been a great deal of fresh information about the relative cost of the various forms of transport and whether the machinery of the Commission was available in that field. Then, I suppose, we would have found, by the adjustment of the cost system, the Commission being driven into fields which it ought not to follow and which the traffic itself wanted to follow.
The Bill will be subject to many discussions in the House, and I look forward to them. I shall be very glad, if I am invited, to be in the neighbourhood of Morecambe during the Labour Party Conference in September, to listen to the 12 resolutions attacking the set-up under nationalised industry, which I see today are to be on the agenda.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: As the right hon. Gentleman wants to know what the people are thinking, perhaps he would like to go to a meeting of the lorry drivers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would point out that one of the resolutions comes from the Mid-Bedfordshire Labour Party, with which I am at least in friendly relationship. I should be very glad indeed to discuss with the unions and all concerned the problems of this Bill.
I was ready, as I said, to discuss them before the Bill was published, but the unions decided otherwise. Now the Bill is published, I shall welcome any talks and conversations we may have. I would discuss it also with the Railway Executive and Transport Commission and all engaged in transport. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too late."] I should like to make plain that, as we intend to be in power for a long time, we intend to carry through Parliament a Bill which will work efficiently.

Mr. Poole: On a point of order. The Minister has made frequent references to a Bill before Parliament. I understand,

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is out of order to refer to legislation which is to be considered in this House. If the Minister is allowed to make these references, will the rest of us be free to discuss the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It is not anticipating legislation because the Bill is not to be taken this Session.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As an ordinary Member of Parliament, I took steps to look that up myself. I thought that part of the duty of a party of planners was to know what was in order.
I shall be glad to discuss the Bill in all its detail with the interests concerned. Those who want to retain the road haulage monopoly in public hands will never be satisfied. Those who also want permanently to shackle A and B licences within the 25-mile limit will never be satisfied. Those who want to hold road transport to a theory will never be satisfied.
All those who recognise the present situation recognise the need for radical changes, but they may differ as to the form any change should take. I shall have the time, patience and readiness to listen to what they have to say. The broad structure of the Bill represents the Government's intentions. I would never be too proud to listen to any advice which may come from those who want to see this Bill work, and who recognise that the existing situation cannot indefinitely be tolerated.
We approach this problem in this way. There is undoubtedly, as is generally recognised, an economic crisis in Great Britain. Transport can play a vital part in bringing this economic crisis under control. To play that vital part there has to be de-centralisation. The railways know it and many railwaymen welcome it. The Road Haulage Executive itself in the Report agrees that is so, and the Labour Party has frequently drawn attention to the need to regionalise national organisations.
The best way to deal with de-centralisation is through private enterprise and competition. We believe that the travelling public and the trader should choose the form of transport that they wish, and should themselves have to pay for it, not only in the ordinary cost of


the transport that they use, but also the cost of any other transport services which it is in their own interest should also be preserved. This is the justification for the second use of the levy.
The first use, I think, is clearly right. It would be monstrously unjust to put on to the general taxpayer any loss of goodwill in regard to the sale of these assets. The second use has this purpose: for those industries which need the railways, even though their main interest may appear to lie in road haulage, it is not unreasonable that a charge of this kind, carefully arranged and evenly spread, should also be imposed.
Next we approach this problem from this point of view: it would give me more pleasure than would anything else if I could make a small contribution towards equalising the burdens and improving the competitive position between the railways and roads. I recognise that this is a very real difficulty. I do not believe that anybody takes the view that it can best be achieved by putting more burdens on the roads. It would be almost if not quite impossible to administer a common carrier obligation, an undue preference obligation or anything of that kind. As to taxation, the roads are already paying £350 million in taxes.
But there are ways in which we can help the railways. If there are other ways, I shall be ready to listen to them in the summer months that lie ahead. We can help them in regard to their capital requirements. I know, with Lord Hurcomb, how capital limitations are harming the railways' competitive position, and I will do all I can. The right hon. Gentleman knows how difficult that problem is. We shall hope also to improve their competitive position in other ways.
There is in the Bill, in Clause 22, what the Commission themselves have called the head-room Clause. This will enable the Commission to raise their charges, either freight or passenger, 10 per cent to meet any sudden increase of a temporary nature, to which Lord Hurcomb has repeatedly drawn attention, and which he no doubt has in mind in the covering letter which he wrote to me with the Report. Under the Act of 1947 the Transport Tribunal can impose any manner of conditions on charges

schemes. We now intend to alter that and give much more room for manoeuvre to the Commission. Subject only to the obligation of publication under Clause 19 and certain qualifications in Clause 20 of the Bill they will have a wide measure of freedom in that field.
As to the lower charges which many of us feel they ought to be entitled to charge if they think they can get more traffic that way, they will, subject again to the qualifications in Clause 20, made necessary by the huge resources of the railways, have much greater freedom in that field.
As the House knows, I am now in a position to say emphatically that the British Transport Commission would be entitled to retain for the use of the nationalised undertaking a fleet of road vehicles approximating roughly to what was held by the old railway companies in 1947. This meets the criticism of a number of hon. Members, not least one of the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). It will give the railways the chance of wider earning possibilities and will provide a comparison between the smaller de-nationalised units and the British Transport Commission.
Then, in regard to decentralisation of the railways themselves, I know, as I have said, that this is widely welcomed in many informed railway circles, and we look forward to the publication of their scheme. We shall do all we can to make that scheme work. Hon. Members may criticise the vagueness of the scheme, but the Act of 1947 only set up a Railway Executive to assist the British Transport Commission in its functions. We have gone a great deal further than that.
Many human interests are involved, and I shall never forget that that is so. They are involved both in the existing organisation and in the changes which Government legislation will bring about. I have done my best to give a certain amount of temporary security to those people who are working hard on the Commission and the Executives.

Mr. A. J. Champion: A bit late.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, if the hon. Member would read HANSARD he would see that it is quite a long time ago,


relative to my appointment, that I said that holders of appointments in the Commission and the Executive which were to terminate in August or September would be retained, not necessarily in their existing offices but, of course, at their existing salary.
The members of the Railway Executive are mainly railwaymen who will be absorbed into the new railway structure if they so wish, subject to the normal retiring age. The Road Haulage Executive will come to an end when its activitives have also come to an end. As regards the Docks and Harbours and the Hotels Executives, the eventual form which their activities may take must await the publication of the railway scheme. The London Transport Executive will be retained, though not necessarily in exactly its present form or under its present name.
To all outside who are working on the road or on the railways, I can assure them that this Government are as ready as were the Labour Government in 1947, when there was a far more sweeping proposal in regard to the railways than we are proposing today, to see that the compensation and pension provisions of that Measure are scrupulously enacted in ours. If they would look at Clauses 25 and 26 they will see that that is so.
The provisions referring to the nature of road vehicles and to the obligation to keep proper records of hours worked which are contained in the 1930 and 1933 Acts will be most scrupulously preserved. As I have said, I am anxious, during the summer, to consult all those interested, and not least with those interested in these human problems.
I have no doubt that when the House comes back in October, and later, in November, it will have benefited, and so shall I, by close contact with many of those concerned, of whom a large number support the principles of this Bill and are ready to discuss the details with me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to move his Amendment?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
while recognising the efforts of the British Transport Commission and the Executives, believes that they were entrusted by the Transport Act of 1947 with an impossible task, the

attempt to discharge which has seriously impeded the interchange of goods and services throughout Great Britain.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask what the Minister is moving? Is it the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Poole: On a point of order. A little while ago I raised a point of order regarding a Bill. You were kind enough, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to inform me that no Bill was before the House. Could you tell me to what the Minister has been referring during the last half-hour, during which he has been mentioning various Clauses in a Bill? It is difficult to discuss a Bill which you have ruled is not before the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gather that there is no Bill coming before the House this Session dealing with transport.

Mr. Callaghan: I raised the point I did because the Minister's concluding words were to recommend the Bill. He sat down, and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, asked him to move something. The Minister said "I beg to move." I do not think it was wrong of us to assume that he was moving the Second Reading of the Transport Bill. Certainly, his speech would have led you to that conclusion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, had you listened to it.
I do not blame the Minister for getting away from the Report of the Transport Commission, which contains a great many facts about which he does not want to know. While we recognise that that course has advantages, can we have the assurance that any hon. Member on this side of the House who wishes to refer in detail to legislative proposals which the Government are to make will be at liberty to do so in the course of this debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, generally speaking.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers: I am sure that all of us who are interested in transport have been extremely interested to listen to the speech of the Minister. In the short time the right hon. Gentleman has been at the Ministry he has managed to acquire a very glib and charming manner in the exposition of his Department's policy. I must say that he has not convinced a single person on this


side of the House that the Government have any policy at all about transport.
In fact, to those of us who take our transport seriously, his speech is an insult not only to the House of Commons but to the whole country. If there is any consolation to this side of the House in his speech it is that hundreds of thousands of transport workers who are at present Labour supporters will be more strongly Labour, and those who are at present Conservative will rapidly become Socialist, like the rest of the country.
When this miserable minority Government come to their end at the next General Election, whenever that is, one of the biggest nails in their coffin will be the hopeless mess they are making of transport. There is nothing in the Transport Commission's Report and nothing that has happened since the Act came into existence that justifies the Minister saying anything what he has said about our present transport system being an absolute failure.
Let us look at the Amendment which he has moved and bear in mind the words that he used to support it. The Amendments reads:
This House, while recognising the efforts of the British Transport Commission and the Executives, believes that they were entrusted by the Transport Act of 1947 with an impossible task, the attempt to discharge which has seriously impeded the interchange of goods and services throughout Great Britain.
I thought that when the Minister moved that Amendment he would produce some facts from industry in this country to prove that the British Road Haulage Services had let it down in some way or another, or that they had failed to meet the demands made upon it by industry. He has produced no evidence at all. All he has done is to repeat, over five years later, all the completely inaccurate platitudes that his party made about transport before the 1947 Act was introduced, in spite of all the experiences we have had since.
What is the use of the Minister talking about consultation when he will not listen to any of us who want to talk. That will not make the slightest alteration to what the Tory Party called their policy on transport. He will not change his mind no matter how many people see him. He knows perfectly well that he dare not change his mind, and if ever

there was a more naked attempt than this to secure the profitable part of a publicly-owned industry for private investors I have never seen it. [Laughter.]
I do not think it is at all funny. Many of us on these benches, unlike most of the party opposite, know something about transport. We have spent many years of our lives in it either in rail or road passenger or freight services. Because we have grown up with it, we realised as the years went by that the transport industry had to give the maximum service to our nation in its attempt to climb out of the economic difficulties of the 20th century if it was to emerge once more as a powerful economic nation. That was the principle embodied in the 1947 Transport Act.
Most of the people who write about transport approved the main outlines of the 1947 Act. Those of us who were engaged in the industry, although we might be biased, also approved the principle. There may be independent people whom the Minister can quote in support of his theory, but one can always find independent commentators to support one's point of view. I could quote lots of independent commentators who are supporting the Labour Party point of view. When we see what the Tory Party are going to do to the transport industry we do not think it is funny. We are appalled by it, because we know it can only result in the ruin of an industry which was well on the way towards a profitable future.
One would imagine, having listened to the Minister, that this problem was new to this country. In fact, it is not. All over the world transport services are having their problems. When I spoke in December, 1949, on this subject I referred to the difficulties being experienced by the American railway companies, and how they were making a loss of 100 million dollars. They are still having their difficulties, and the solution which is gradually being adopted all over the world is the very integration of transport services to which the Minister is opposed.
I would approve his policy much more if he would honestly say, "The Tory Party stands for private profit and we are going to give this part of the industry away to benefit our friends." That would be honest and it would be expressing the motive behind the Bill which is to be con-


sidered next Session. Those people who are interested in transport in this country know perfectly well that that is the real motive behind this particular Bill.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) talked recently about prices and the putting up of fares. It is an extraordinary thing that when a public undertaking makes a profit by pursuing precisely the same methods as any other private company—when costs rise then fares are increased to meet those increased costs—it is said to be the wrong thing to do.

Mr. G. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood the case that I made. I am not surprised at that because he was not present at the debate, which took place on a Friday. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) and I were the only people in the House at the time. The particular case I quoted arose when an embargo was placed by British Railways on certain traffic in the early part of last year. At that moment British Road Services raised their charges 25 to 40 per cent. on the firms who had no other form of transport. That was an instance of taking advantage of the difficulties of certain firms.

Mr. Rogers: I thought the hon. Member implied by the case that he quoted that it had a general application.

Mr. Wilson: No. It will be found in HANSARD of 30th July, 1951, column 1653.

Mr. Rogers: It is assumed that when an hon. Member quotes a case to illustrate his point the principle of which he complains has a general application. In any case, let us leave that because I may have misunderstood the hon. Member.
Speakers on the benches opposite are constantly stating that the Transport Commission have only made a profit this year because fares have been increased That is perfectly true, and no one denies it: but it is illogical to argue that it is wrong for a public company or corporation to raise their costs or charges to meet a rise in costs, and to say it is perfectly right for a privately-owned company to do the same thing.
Much nonsense is talked about the question of rising costs. For example, one of the staggering figures given for

the year under review of the actual increase in wages and costs to the Transport Commission is something like £70 million. That is a colossal figure. Again, we ought to emphasise to the people of the country, who have been lead away rather emotionally on this subject of transport fares by those who have exploited the position for political ends, that increases in transport fares, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) at the beginning of his speech, bear no relation to rising costs in the transport industry.
For example, London Transport costs are over 120 per cent. greater than prewar and yet fares have risen only 43 per cent. Costs to British Railways are up by 150 per cent. but there is only a 77 per cent. increase in fares. There is the very big disparity between the actual increase in costs which the Commission have to face, and the amount of that increase which is passed on to the public.
It is rather extraordinary that despite the fact that increases in charges and fares are much less in proportion to the increase in costs that the Commission should have done so well this year. They point out on page 28 of the Report that:
the most important factors explaining the difference between the level of costs and the level of fares are as follows:—(a) the loadings on the services are much better; (b) there has been an increase in travel; (c) the renewal of the undertaking is not being provided for on the same basis as pre-war; (d) the remuneration of capital has been greatly diminished.
One of the things about which we hear from hon. Members opposite is that there has been a great increase in the number of the black-coated administrative staff of the Commission. That is answered on page 49 of the Report where it states that, in fact, there has been a reduction since 1948 in the number of black-coated workers in proportion to the motive unit and to 100 tons carried. So there is another lie about the Transport Commission which has been proved false by the facts.
I think that the Tory Party ought to try to listen to those who know something about the transport industry. The only Member of the House on the other side who really understands transport is one who has publicly expressed complete


condemnation of the White Paper policy of this Government, and yet the Tory Party take no notice whatsoever of this distinguished representative of the transport industry—no notice whatsoever.

Mr. Lindgren: The only one who knows anything about it.

Mr. Rogers: And he is the only one, as my hon. Friend says, who knows anything about it.
I listened with complete astonishment to the remarks of the Minister about the integration of road haulage and rail. In 1931 the London and North-Eastern Railway announced that it had just completed its re-organisation following on the passing of the Railways Act, 1921. It took 10 years for the L.N.E.R. to re-organise. The L.N.E.R., large though it was, was a small undertaking compared with the vast, complex network of the Transport Commission.
The Road Services have been acquiring undertakings only for three years—approximately; and they have just completed the acquisition of most of the companies concerned. The Report itself says that
The way was prepared for many important steps in the process of integrating the different forms of transport.
In other words, the Commission themselves do not claim to have gone very far in the matter of integration, and yet the Minister is accusing them of not having taken very large steps towards integration.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I did not say that at all. I said that there were great problems that, in the view of the Government, were insoluble.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Unintegratable.

Mr. Rogers: I think the Government are in favour of disintegration, not integration at all.
I do not know what sort of transport men the right hon. Gentleman has been talking to, who do not believe that road transport and rail can be integrated. Those I talked to, those I knew in the service, and still know and still talk to, the people involved in road haulage and transport, believe it can be done. But for the Minister to pretend that in three years

it was possible to have made any large contribution to the solution of the problem of integration of transport is simply to talk nonsense, especially when we look back to the time it took the L.N.E.R.10 years—to re-organise its concern after the passing of the 1921 Act. In fact, we are living in cloud-cuckoo-land on this question of public transport.
The Commission have managed to achieve some equilibrium in the matter of their finances this year. Why interfere with them? It is now evident to everyone who approaches the problem with anything like an impartial mind that the Transport Commission are to be a great success, and one of the things that the Tory Party at the moment fear most is that any form of socialistic experiment should be a success, and they are going to make sure that it is destroyed before it can be a success and prove to the world that British Socialism is not an example to be followed.
But it is only temporary. It is a sad interruption of the business of the Transport Commission, but it is a temporary one, and whether the present Government are in power for only six months or for two or three years, however long their miserable life is to run, one thing is certain, that there is no hallmark of permanency on anything that the present Government do about British transport.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. David Ormsby-Gore: The speech of the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) is rather similar to the one made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), in that he also made no claim whatever that any real progress had been made with integration between road and rail, which is one of the main features of the Motion the right hon. Gentleman moved.
The Report we are considering has been published at an extremely important moment in the history of British transport. Therefore, I read it with very great interest, as, I am sure, all other hon. Members in the House did; and, as I read it, I was more and more driven to certain perfectly clear conclusions, and those conclusions were, I am afraid I must say, diametrically opposite from the conclusions arrived at in the Motion put down by the Opposition. I cannot help feeling that the views expressed by hon. Members


opposite show either that they are rather gullible, or else that they are wilfully blind in reading this Report.
I want to confine my remarks to the particular affairs of the Railway and Road Haulage Executives. As regards the former, it is perfectly clear that some useful progress has been made towards greater efficiency and towards financial solvency, and I am sure we are all very glad to see that, but the Transport Commission, quite rightly, points out that it has been held up to some extent by matters entirely outside its control. Nevertheless, it could have made accelerated progress if certain other matters had been put right, and it makes certain specific proposals. Those specific proposals are, first of all, that there is a need
… for a suitably revised organisation of their administration.
Secondly, there is need for the railways to be permitted
to adjust without undue delays the level of their charges.
Hon. Members will appreciate that I am quoting the exact words of Lord Hurcomb in the covering letter to this Report.
The Government are going to carry out both these recommendations of the Transport Commission. This will be a very considerable advance for the railways over the position in which they were operating under the previous Administration. The Transport Commission is to be asked to produce a plan for the re-organisation of its administration—particularly of the railways; and I sincerely hope that this proposed re-organisation of the railways will be submitted to the Minister some time next year. It is, I think, common knowledge that a certain amount of decentralisation in the railways has been needed for some time. This is generally recognised by a large number of people in the transport industry; and I believe that certainly some Socialist Ministers were hoping to take steps in that very same direction.

Mr. Edward Davies: In what way does the hon. Member mean it is proposed to decentralise the railways—in contrast with the present set up in which we have regional officers having a large measure of autonomy; or going back to the pre-1947 position; or to the pre-1921 posi-

tion? In what particular functions does the hon. Gentleman propose to decentralise?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am not making any proposals how I should do it. What I am saying is that the Government are going to ask the Transport Commission to put forward its proposals how it thinks it ought to be re-organised, because, as the hon. Member, no doubt, knows from reading this Report, Lord Hurcomb specifically states that some re-organisation of the administration of the railways is urgently required. That was what I was drawing to the attention of hon. Members.
As regards charges, again the Minister proposes to give the rails greater latitude in increasing their charges, and he hopes, no doubt, by that to prevent the Railway Executive from making the very heavy losses which it made towards the end of 1949 and in the early part of 1950. The great importance of those losses which were made over that period is borne out in paragraph 29 of the Report. There the Commission states:
Indeed, the bulk of the present deficit itself occurred over a comparatively short period; as was shown on page 36 of the Third Annual Report, it was the later months of 1949 and, in particular, the first five months of 1950 (when the Commission were awaiting an approved but delayed increase in freight charges) that were damagingly out of balance.
That is what the Commission says about previous methods of adjusting charges, and it wants greater latitude. Again that is what Lord Hurcomb states in his letter covering this Report. I think that greater latitude will undoubtedly help to prevent the damage and losses which occurred over that period of the working of the Executive. Given those two major changes of policy, there is much in this Report to indicate that the railways can be made to pay and meet fair competition from the roads. Indeed, the Transport Commission states emphatically in paragraph 30:
… the view that the subsidy is the only possible remedy for the position is seen to be unwarranted.
I am sure we all agree with that, particularly after having read the Report.
It is true that there are certain burdens imposed on the railways which the Transport Commission regard as unfair. However, I was rather surprised that although these burdens include the maintenance of


certain lines required for strategic purposes, the maintenance of a number of road bridges, the maintenance of level crossings and so on, the total figure at which the Transport Commission puts that burden is only between £1 million and £2 million, against a background of an annual turnover of £600 million. Therefore, I think there are good reasons for confidence in the financial future of our railways, quite apart from the savings which can be achieved by the quicker adjustment of charges and by the scheme of decentralisation.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: Is it the case of the hon. Gentleman that only by fresh legislation can there be any re-organisation of areas and a quickening of the process of making fresh charges?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I was not referring to legislation. I was saying that the Government propose to take certain action in conformity with the view set out by the Transport Commission, and I am quoting from the Report. I have said that, quite apart from the savings which this should bring about, and which the Transport Commission believes will be brought about, of its ordinary running it states in paragraph 87:
With regard to development, it can only be said that great potential economies are to be expected, in the operating of railways especially, if adequate capital and physical resources are forthcoming. The improvement in freight train speeds which ought to result from a general introduction of the fully-braked wagon would produce savings of millions of pounds a year; the modernising and re-siting of marshalling yards would substantially reduce costs; and an improved system of motive power would assist generally.
There are other paragraphs which show that the Railway Executive foresees considerable economies, and this gives every ground for thinking that the railways will be able to compete against the roads in the future and will be able to maintain their financial stability.
I now want to turn to the third matter on which certain conclusions can be drawn. This is in the sphere of the much publicised integration of roads and rail. Looking through this report, I think we shall all agree that the amount of integration has been ludicrously small. In paragraph 5 we find that pride of place is given to an account of how small consignments of goods now travel to London from Manchester in containers. But I cannot see

anything in that paragraph which would lead me to believe that this service could not be carried on just as well without having a complete monopoly of all the long-distance road haulage in the country. It is no doubt a most admirable innovation, but it does not seem to me to prove that we must have a nationalised road haulage undertaking in order to carry out this economy.

Mr. Lindgren: Surely the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, where the road services are under one control, it is possible to collect small traffic and send it by rail from one centre to another, whereas the independent road operators had hundreds of their lorries going backwards and forwards over the roads. It was impossible, therefore, because they were competing with the railways rather than being complementary to them.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, but it seems to me that if the railway is prepared to offer a service which brings small consignments from door to railway and puts them in a container and delivers them in Manchester, the consumer can chose for himself whether he sends them that way or by the ordinary road haulage route.
We are also told that there is a lot of thinking going on about the future of integration. I seriously suggest that it was up to hon. Members opposite to give a great deal of thought to integration before they passed the Act in 1947. It is odd that they should come along three years afterwards and say they are doing a lot of thinking on the matter.
Turning to Chapter 2, there is a rather long, rambling statement about the economics of road and rail, and on page 74, we find the following in paragraph 25:
The general conclusions, nevertheless, are reasonably clear In present circumstances the cost of rail transport is likely to be lower than the cost of road transport and vice versa, according to conditions as follows:—
Then follows a small table with the types of traffic more efficiently moved by rail and by road. Under the heading "Rail" we find that traffic is more efficiently carried by rail when there is direct rail access, that is, siding connection. It is more efficiently carried by road when there is "no easy access to rail." Then we find "Heavy bulk (Train load)" is better moved by rail, whereas "smaller bulk (up to lorry load)" is better moved by


road. Such considerations might well have been in all our minds before giving a great deal of thought to integration.
The truth of the matter is that during the four years since the Act was passed there has been no real progress in the integration of road and rail, and while the road services are showing some improvement, from extremely low level of efficiency, they are still not giving the personal service to customers which was previously expected. The Road Haulage Executive is aware that greater decentralisation is required. To ensure that personal service it is proposed in paragraph 100 on page 123 to split the country into geographical divisions with 50 districts, and it is said specifically:
The operational groups comprised in each District would be small enough to ensure the personal service which has always been so valuable a feature of road haulage …

Mr. Mellish: Can the hon. Gentleman cite an instance of where he has had complaints from customers about the way in which the Road Haulage Executive has done its job? He cannot make a statement like that without giving proof.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am giving the proof as set out in this Report which I am reading. I am saying that the Road Haulage Executive clearly states in the Report that it does not think the present set-up is satisfactory and it is proposing to break it down into smaller operating units. I do not for one moment suggest that I am an expert on transport. All I have done is to read the Report and to describe the conclusions reached by the Road Haulage Executive in one particular section.

Mr. Edward Davies: The hon. Member made the statement that the public are getting a less personal service. It was that part of his remarks to which my hon. Friend addressed himself. Has the hon. Member any evidence from personal knowledge to support his statement?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not want to quote a personal case—

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Come on, tell us.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: —but it seems to me that if the Road Haulage Executive write in their Report that they must introduce certain reorganisations in the work

of the Executive in order to provide a personal service, that means that they feel that the present personal service is not all that it might be. In the statement to which I have referred, there is a kind of veiled tribute to the very fine personal service which was provided by small road haulage operators in the past.

Mr. H. Hynd: Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington) rose—

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I cannot give way. That is a clear indication of the lines along which progress can be achieved. The sooner that road transport is returned to the small independent operators, the better for the consumer and for industry.
To sum up, I think it is quite clear that the railways can increase their efficiency and can successfully compete with the roads, provided they are allowed to reorganise their administration and are given the latitude in adjusting their charges which they require. I am very glad that the Government propose to give them both these things.
As regards road haulage, the advantages of integration, as shown in the Report, are conspicuous by their absence. The true profits of the Road Haulage Executive are either non-existent or, at the best, are so negligible that they provide no support whatever for the railways. The monopoly of the long distance road haulage has brought no benefits to the public and needs to be broken up.
"Integration" was a word that was used to mystify the millions. It has proved to be complete eyewash, and this clear conclusion would be drawn by any intelligent person who troubled to search beneath the veneer of propaganda which is contained in the Report.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: It would not be an unfair criticism of the speech of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) to say that when he was interrupted he failed to answer the questions which were put to him. Like his right hon. Friend who opened the debate, he made a lot of dogmatic statements about inefficiency and the impersonal nature of the service but did not produce a tittle of evidence. The proposals came not from the Road Haulage Executive, or from their Report or that of the Transport Commission, but were fabrications of the hon. Member and certainly of the Minister.
Throughout the speech of the right hon. Gentleman we heard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) said, a whole string of platitudes without any supporting evidence whatever. Take, for example, the statement that in the new set-up there would be an opportunity for the railway companies to make so much money that they would be able to have their reserves and would have plenty of money to develop the industry and to repay all their standing charges.
I welcome the opportunity which is given to us today to talk about the proposals which are gathered up in the Bill and the White Paper, because this is an unexpected opportunity for us. The view on these benches, unlike that of the hon. Member and the Minister, is that the Government's proposals will do nothing to help the industry, but are economic sabotage as far as the country is concerned That is strong language, but no language less than that would describe the process.

Mr. Nabarro: A Socialist shibboleth.

Mr. Davies: It may be a shibboleth. I will quote another. The industry of the country—

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Davies: Let me finish this shibboleth, then the hon. Member can have his shot. The industry, trade, commerce and prosperity of the country cannot be achieved unless we have a first-class, sound and properly integrated transport system. The proposals of the Government are the absolute negation of the good work which has already been begun, and only begun.

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Member had listened to Socialist propaganda for the last 25 years, he would recognise that as a typical piece of soap box oratory. All that he is putting over now are the Socialist shibboleths that they have enunciated since about 1910. He has not advanced a single good reason for stating that the proposals of the Government represent economic sabotage.

Mr. Davies: It is a courtesy of the House to defer to an interruption which is likely to be useful, but it is a gross discourtesy to use that privilege to put over the kind of eyewash that the hon.

Member has just done. I have been on my feet precisely a minute and a half, and he asks me why I have not developed my whole argument. If I tell him that I have been in the industry in various capacities for 25 years, he will perhaps appreciate that it is not from soap box experience that I, with my colleagues, have some first-hand knowledge of the industry.
I speak today for the 600,000 men in the industry; not from the syndicalist point of view, but from a body of men who wish to see the country in a prosperous condition and playing its part in the world economy, and who believe that these reactionary proposals are putting the clock back.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), as an industrialist, knows a great deal about these problems. He tells us a great deal about what should be done in the electricity and fuel and power industries to step up production. But what is the use of our asking for increased production if we have an outmoded transport system which is breaking down for the lack of equipment and which has not properly served the public over many decades because it has not had the equipment or the capital, and where very often traffic is held up for weeks when it has to travel across the country before it can be shipped and exported abroad.
The hon. Member on the other side is making some sort of noisy zoological interruption. Probably he will have an opportunity to make his contribution later, but if he likes to challenge me I shall willingly give way to him.

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Davies: No, I am not talking about the hon. Member for Kidderminster but of his hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), who is sitting behind him.

Mr. G. Wilson: When the hon. Member says that the railway system has been inefficient for decades, he is going a bit far. Until the beginning of the war, our transport industry led the world and we were recognised as the pioneers of development.

Mr. Nabarro: Before the hon. Member continues—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): There is a long list of Members who are waiting to speak in the debate. I hope that Members will refrain and keep their speeches until they are fortunate enough to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Davies: Perhaps I may reply briefly to the last interruption. I did not say that within the limits of the resources at their disposal the railways had been inefficient. What I said, and what I was about to develop, was that they had never had the modern capital equipment. They were not able to attract sufficient capital before the war, as the hon. Member knows, to modernise their system and to give the country and the public the service that they need if we are to have a prosperous and efficient transport system.
Although something has been done since the Commission began their work in 1947, a great job of work has been done in difficult circumstances. As the Report so clearly shows they have been handicapped by not having sufficient raw materials and money at their disposal. Any of us who has worked in the industry knows that many of our marshalling yards, terminal depots and equipment—as is clearly shown in the Report—locos, rollingstock and passenger vehicles for the accommodation of the travelling public—

Mr. J. Harrison: Lousy engines.

Mr. Davies: —as my hon. Friend says, "lousy engines" are out-of-date. In these circumstances the railwaymen and railway managers have a difficult task to perform. It should be our endeavour—in whatever part of the House we sit, as there is no party issue in this—to develop our transport system, which is vital to the life of everyone in the country, at the earliest possible moment. We would have liked to see more progress in the provision of locos, wagons and vehicles and something done to help them get increasing supplies of steel and so on. But, as the Report says, in these matters the modest targets they set themselves in 1951 were not achieved by some 20 to 25 per cent. We have had reports from time to time that the running roads have not been considered safe for high speed traffic and considerable disadvantage has keen experienced as a result.
When the Transport Act was passed in 1947 it was assumed that this process

of integration, whatever we may mean by that, should go on. [Laughter.] I willingly concede that various people have various ideas on what integration is. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) spoke of integration between each facet of the industry, each unit of the industry. The Minister spoke of what we generally understand as the welding together of the several units. Complaint is made that slight progress has been made in this respect.
I think anyone who reads the Report will see that when the railways were in considerable difficulty over the winter substantial relief was given by taking over much coal and other traffic of an urgent character and putting it on the road. I know that in the West of England traffic has been held up often because the junctions have been unable to accept traffic for weeks. And the same kind of thing has happened at the ports. It is possible, by the use of a second service, the road service, to relieve congested areas, and that is what we mean by integration.
As to the road passenger side, I agree with one hon. Member who said that slow progress had been made with the area passenger schemes. He suggested that because of that we ought perhaps to abolish such schemes as exist. That is not a satisfactory answer, and the complaint I have about my own Government and the socialisation of transport is that it has not gone far enough. We need more powers. There was too much circumlocution to get this desirable form of integration. I may be treading on the corns of some colleagues in the country, but that is the view I take and how I see the problem in relation to the national interest.
When we paid £998 million compensation for the railways, some in the industry and elsewhere thought we were over generous. They thought we were saddling ourselves with interest charges we could never meet, but, as we have heard, the industry broke even and had a slight profit last year. Given a reasonable chance, there is no reason why they should not better their financial position. If there is anything in the comment of the critics that we were over generous in paying compensation at 3 per cent. or 3½ per cent. on the £998 million on an


agreement by which we proposed to integrate and take over road, water and other transport services, what will they say today when it is sought to break up the transport industry, leaving the railways in their erstwhile position of before the war when they were unfairly handicapped?
We are not here to make any special pleading, but the position is totally different if we separate the road from the railway side of the industry. I know that there are frivolous proposals to raise the levy on C licences, which would be opposed hip and thigh by supporters of hon. Members opposite. It is supposed to amortize the loss and to sell up by kind of Dutch auction. It is said that that would compensate the railways for the loss of traffic which would go to the roads.
I wonder what sort of practical transport men they are who look to a transport tribunal to decide why certain traffic is going on the road. The whole argument today has been that we must conserve this choice of service and that we must not dictate to the travelling or trading public. That means one of two things. It means that we are to have a part of transport which is unemployed because we are pandering to the whim and caprice of the public, or we are to have the service maintained for such conditions as will have to be met in an emergency or if the traffic were offered. But the trade may not be wanted at the time. We would have wasteful competition because of that—

Mr. E. Partridge: Rubbish.

Mr. Davies: If there is to be a choice it assumes a choice of two services. If the traders do not elect to use the second or third service, it is unemployed. That is a simple argument which calls for no quibble. We have no intention of destroying this choice of service, but the creation of endless C licences, running into thousands, is not at all economic. I am not objecting to the creation of C licences; none of my hon. Friends says that there ought to be an end to C licences.
The simple proposition we make is that there should be proof of need. Instead of duplicating the service over the

country and over the same routes, there should be some reasonable proof of need. But the applicant today can get a C licence without any formality at all. As the Minister said, quite clearly it is not the small vans but the great vehicles with great carrying capacity which are on the road. They are making our roads unsafe. Some of them are taking traffic which should be on the railways or carried by other forms of transport.

Mr. Nabarro: I speak as a C licence operator. Is it not a fact that the enormous increase in C licences over the last five years—they have more than doubled—is a public manifestation of grave dissatisfaction with the whole abracadabra of nationalisation?

Mr. Davies: That is a fair point, and I do not complain of the hon. Member's intervention. But he will agree with me that during the war it was very difficult to replace vehicles and, naturally, apart from the change in the kind of set-up, each year we have seen the introduction of some new form of production or service which replaced old methods. There was a natural wastage in the first place and a natural development in the second place, but beyond that there was something of an extravagant nature which needs to be controlled in some way. I do not see that it needs to be completely exorcised.
This subject is close to my heart, and I could say much more, but I want to give my hon. Friends a chance of contributing to the debate from their own experiences. Before I sit down, I should like to ask what the Government are doing about the charges schemes under the 1947 Act. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the road hauliers could not be expected to become common carriers like the railway companies. The railway companies have to give equality of service to all and are bound by a system of charges. The new Bill gives the railways latitude to adjust their charges up to 10 per cent., subject to the approval of the Transport Tribunal, and that will he some relief, but we should not let the road haulage system get away with it while the railways remain saddled with outmoded conditions and charges. The charges schemes were supposed to be produced within two years of the passing of the Act but that period was extended.
Has anything been done to revise railway classifications? The railways are bound to charge on a basis of 21 classes of traffic, which is a completely outmoded system. Why cannot the railways be free to make their own charges, or why cannot the classes be reduced to five or six? If the railways are to compete with the roads, we should put the railways in a position to do so and should not require them meticulously to observe a system of charges which is completely outmoded.
If the financial structure was suspect in 1947, if we were too generous in giving £998 million at 3½ per cent. to shareholders, and if we are now going to take away the profitable sections so that the railways must fend for themselves, is it not time to remind ourselves of what the President of the Board of Trade used to say when he was upon these benches, that there should be an inquiry into the whole set-up of the transport industry? He used to dance about and thump these benches and draw our attention to the weaknesses of the Transport Commission and the road industry and say that before anything was done there should be a public inquiry. But there is going to be no public inquiry.
I can understand the right hon. Gentleman saying this afternoon that he would welcome any contributions from my hon. Friends; the Government do not know where they are going. I have no doubt about what the country will think of the Government and its transport proposals. I am reminded of the words of the nursery rhyme, "Leave them alone and they'll come home." But it will be "dragging their tails behind them" in this case.
The Government have pandered to their friends in destroying the industry and the good work which the Transport Commission has done. No doubt some weaknesses in the set-up call for revision, but we expected that from time to time. The Government's Act reflects not only the stupidity of the Conservative Party when dealing with this great problem, but also the ineptitude of the so-called businessmen of this country in dealing with the basic industries.
Without taking upon myself the mantle of a prophet, I can tell the

Government that there will be trouble within the industry—I am no encourager of industrial strife; I believe in Parliamentary democracy and the processes of constitutional Government—if the men in the industry do not have a fair deal. The Government are playing with the lives of 600,000 railwaymen who have derived great advantages in terms of welfare and conditions of work and are firmly convinced that the development of the last few years is in the national interest.
If it can be demonstrated that, at the behest of the paymasters of the Tory Party, the system is to be thrown into a condition of anarchy, there will be great industrial strife. We shall place the responsibility for that where it rightly belongs, upon the shoulders of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are always willing to sacrifice the interests of the nation for a section.

Mr. David Renton: If what the hon. Gentleman has been saying about the attitude of the men employed in the Commission's road haulage services is true, can he explain how it was that in 1951 there was a turnover of no less than 25 per cent. among the drivers and others employed in those services? In other words, 25 per cent. of the men left and an equivalent number had to be taken on to take their places.

Mr. Davies: I was not aware of the figure of 25 per cent., but I should imagine that the turnover in this industry is more rapid than in most industries. In any event, if it had been in the old days under a Tory Government the men would not have been quite so prepared to get out of the industry for they would have been afraid of not getting another job. On a recent Sunday morning some of my colleagues and I addressed some 500 men, most of whom came from the road haulage industry. I am speaking today on their instructions to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly; I am proud to do so, because I believe their point of view is consonant with the public interest.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a common and acknowledged fact in all parts of the country that when a vacancy in private enterprise transport is announced it is immediately over-subscribed some eight or 10 times by applications from servants of the British Road Services organisation?

Mr. Davies: I give the hon. Gentleman the credit of quoting from his own experience, but that is contrary to my experience. Organised workers with whom I have been in contact and who have written to me have expressed their appreciation of the better conditions which they have experienced under the new arrangements. The hon. Gentleman will recall the absolutely scurvy conditions under which many of the men were called upon to work and that we had to resort to Commissions, control of wages and so on in order to bring these men into line with other workers in the country. Many men were exploited and had to work 10 or 12 hours a day with insufficient rest or sleep. That was one of the basic factors which lead to control.

Colonel Cyril Banks: The hon. Gentleman should bring his thoughts into perspective. He talks of 22 years' knowledge of the industry. I have been in the industry longer than he has. It is very wrong of him to talk about scurvy conditions. I have worked at all levels in the industry, and I find his comments most unsuitable.

Mr. Davies: I would be the first to concede that there were some employers who were good. But I say also that there were instances where men were working under conditions which were a disgrace to the industry and from which they had to be rescued. If the hon. and gallant Member knows anything about the industry, he will know that I am not being unfair in what I am saying. All this was brought up in the Salter Commission Report which led to the Road Traffic Acts of 1930 and 1934, and all the rest of it. In those days men were 10 a penny. Employers could pick and choose and sack men when they pleased. They did not observe trade union conditions or the rules of the road, and the men had to be rescued from those conditions.
If the proposals of the Government mean the abolition of any kind of planning or control for any section of the industry, I say it will lead to complete anarchy. It will be the dissolution of the fine work which the Transport Commission have done over the limited period of their responsibility. How nonsensical and stupid it is to expect that after three or four years we should have a perfected machine and that everything would be accomplished. I know that under the

1921 Railway Act it took a decade to work out some of the small problems on the L.M.S.; and it may well take 10 years, or perhaps a generation, properly to integrate this great transport industry.
It is wrong for anyone to say that the work of the Commission should be condemned or that the job we gave them was too great for them to do. Why should we throw away all the experience of people like the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) who reminded the House of the facts in such forcible terms during our last debate? He spoke from practical experience, but there are some hon. Members opposite who never seem to learn. I hope therefore that all my hon. Friends will take this opportunity of proclaiming to the country that the responsibility for this diabolical Measure which is proposed rests on the Government—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend repeat the words he used?

Mr. Davies: I repeat, the diabolical proposals of the Government with respect to this industry, so that it may be understood throughout the country. The Minister wants points of view and he will get them, but I am afraid that some of them will not be to his taste.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) in the tenor of his remarks. I wish to speak on some aspects of the Motion before the House,
The integration of road and rail traffic under common ownership
is the crux of the whole matter, and I was interested in the way the Minister put his finger on the point when he so rightly pointed out that the fourth annual Report and all the other Reports which have been produced are not "integrated." There are nearly a million people working in this industry and it is possible to hear of back-biting and statements about things that are going on in this huge organisation.
The point is that at present there should be one system, one authority, and under that authority an appropriate transport system should be used which will move goods in the most economical fashion. To make a big organisation work properly a great deal of decentralisation is neces-


sary, not only on the administrative side but as regards responsibility as well. One of the things I do not like is that while in the scheme to be drawn up it is indicated that there should be decentralisation, it is not clearly indicated that the Government wishes to see the regional officers—who should become the general managers of the regions—accept some financial responsibility for the success of the trading in those regions.
I know that there are many difficulties about administration but I would press the Government to urge the Commission to consider this point so that the general managers of the regions may be told, "You have to run this region and produce a credit balance. You have to supply the transport system which the people in the area want. You can vary your charges over a great degree, so that by putting up the prices of unremunerative traffic you will tend to decrease it, and by lowering the prices of remunerative traffic you will attract more."
The fundamental weakness of this idea of integration may be traced to Parliamentary control. If decentralisation is decided upon in order to acquire efficiency, initiative and a sense of alertness in the lower stages of the organisation, that is not consistent with the requirements at the top, and for ability to be able to answer Questions put to Ministers about what, for example, was done by the station master at Little Bodmin last Friday, and to see that he does not do it again. In fact, the Transport Commission has riddled the whole organisation with this "looking over your shoulder" attitude. It is stagnating the initiative of the younger people in the industry.
That is the real problem. No one has discovered how Parliament is to control a big public monopoly and, at the same time, provide the freedom which allows real initiative among the people at the bottom. We take the view that there is no answer, and that therefore we should avoid public monopolies whenever possible. But if there is essentially a monopolistic feature then there is no answer to the problem and we have to accept it.
But in this case there is an answer. It is possible to have a large railway system complete with hotels and ports and other anciliaries, including an anciliary road

feeder service. Instead of making that organisation closely answerable to Parliament we could put up against it a free independent road system spread all over the country and run by private enterprise. But the very fact of having that competition would mean that there would be a great deal less need for Parliament to worry about what the great public monopoly is doing. I do not suggest that Parliament should not annually review the matter, but the need for that review would not be as strong and Parliament need not worry about it anything like so much.

Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Gentleman take the argument a little further? Would he allow untrammelled growth of private transport all over the country while, at the same time, maintaining a strict limitation on the number of vehicles which would operate as ancillary to the railways? Is that what the hon. Gentleman means?

Mr. Holt: The road transport system ought to be completely free. It may be necessary to have some temporary delay after de-nationalisation, but a year or so later I consider that Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933 should be abolished. There should be no A, B or C licences. We should still continue to have a "certificate of fitness" as for passenger vehicles which would be issued only to people whose vehicles had been examined, there should be a fair wages clause and any safety regulations which Parliament thought fit to impose for the safety of the public and of the employees in the industry. But, after that, there would be no privileged private monopolies—

Mr. Manuel: Would the hon. Gentleman allow the same conditions for the railways?

Mr. Holt: I think that we could allow the railways almost complete freedom. I do not think that it is practicable to say that they could vary their charges from top to bottom, but they could be given certain considerable scope within which they could vary their charges. It is, however, essential to maintain the transport tribunals so that people in isolated areas where there might not be effective competition could appeal if the railways wanted to put up prices unduly.

Mr. Mellish: As the hon. Gentleman is expounding Liberal Party policy on transport, will he take this matter a little further? Does he say that there should be no licensing of any road transport vehicles and that anyone who wants to purchase and run a vehicle for the transport of goods will be entirely free to do so?

Mr. Holt: One must remember the sort of remark made by many people who have had A and B licences. The story was brought to my attention of a man who was asked whether he was in favour of the cancellation of A and B licences. He replied, "No, I am not in favour of that at all," and added that before they had a licensing system his firm tended to lose their best drivers who set up in business on their own.
Is it not perfectly reasonable that in this country a young, energetic driver should be allowed to go into the road transport industry if he wants to? Why should he be subjected by Parliament to the restriction that he cannot earn his living by being a good driver and supplying an efficient transport service of his own to the community?

Mr. Mellish: Let us get this straight. Do the Liberal Party, or do they not, favour no licensing of any transport vehicles at all? Can we have a straight answer to that question?

Mr. Holt: I thought that I had said that. I said it about five minutes ago, possibly when the hon. Gentleman was asleep. I said that after the mechanism of denationalisation had been put into effect—after a year or two—then, from a date which ought to be specified in the Act, Part I of the Act of 1933 should be repealed. We should have competition on the roads.
I wish to comment on the various Executives. Fundamentally, a mistake was made when it was laid down that the Executives should be appointed by the Minister. What has happened is that the Executives have looked to the Minister and have pulled a long nose at the Transport Commission. That has not resulted in smooth working.
Another mistake is that these Executives are functional. They are experts who deal with special sections. Some administer certain sections of the railways. I am told that the result is that

when they have meetings they work it very nicely. They have private meetings and not-so-private meetings. At the private meetings the minutes are called the "green" minutes. But when the part-timers come in and the meeting becomes more general the "white" minutes are submitted to the Commission, and the secret ones are called the "green" minutes. These personnel back up their own departments. There is no discussion such as that at a meeting of a board of directors. They are all interested in getting approval of their own ideas for their own departments, and, of course, they do not question each other.
Finally, I should like to draw attention to the position of London Transport. I can see no reason why London Transport should continue to be under the Transport Commission. It will be best put back as a statutory body on its own answerable to Parliament. Let it stand on its own feet. There will always be argument about whether London is standing too much of the central charges or too little. I suggest that great advantage would be obtained by the Transport Commission and London Transport if the two were separated and the latter became a statutory body.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Bevins: I am not clear whether the House is debating the Report of the Transport Commission for last year, the White Paper put forward by Her Majesty's Government or, more recently, the rather audacious plan for transport sponsored by the Liberal Party. I have listened with rapt attention to all the speeches made from both sides of the House. I have enjoyed, as I always do, the contributions of those hon. Gentlemen opposite who are, or have been throughout their lives, intimately associated with the transport industry.
There are one or two matters on which I wish to cross swords with hon. Gentlemen opposite. The sense of their case, as I understand it, is that the Transport Commission, especially during the last year or 18 months, have in some way or other developed into a paragon of commercial virtue. They say that the efficiency of the Commission has improved and that there has been a good deal of what is known as integration—something that nobody on the benches opposite or,


for that matter, on this side, has attempted to define satisfactorily. Although it has not been said in this debate today, it has been widely said outside by hon. Gentlemen opposite that, for the first time, the British Transport Commission have succeeded in making a not inconsiderable operating surplus on their working for 1951.
I can quite understand that not only hon. Members opposite, but hon. Members on this side of the House as well, are in the position of having to make some slight adjustments in their attitude both to the British Transport Commission and the transport industry itself, and, of course, it has been remarked, both in this debate and in its forerunner a month or two ago, that this side of the House is no longer pre-occupied with protecting the interests of the British taxpayer. It is said that we are quite prepared to throw the interests of the taxpayer to the four winds of heaven, and that the party opposite has suddenly become the guardian angel of the men and women in this country who pay taxes.
It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) earlier in the debate that our only interest was to satisfy those mysterious and rather corrupt influences in the background. Yesterday, it was the brewers; the day before, it was the builders; and today, it is the Road Haulage Association.

Mr. Mellish: If the hon. Gentleman wants to get rid of all these doubts, why does not the party opposite issue a balance sheet to show us where they get their money from?

Mr. Bevins: It is because I do want to get rid of these doubts that I propose to say what I am going say.
I want to make it plain straight away that there is one very simple defect in the arguments adduced by hon. Members opposite this afternoon. The gravamen of their complaint against my right hon. Friend—and I listened very carefully to what he said and to what was said by hon. Members opposite—is that no evidence has been put forward to show that the Road Haulage Executive in particular is, as my right hon. Friend indeed alleged, an inefficient organisation. The hon. Member for Kensington, North said that not a tittle of evidence had been

put forward by my right hon. Friend in support of that contention.
I should like, if I may, to deal with that particular point, which is an important one, on the financial basis, and I want to try to be perfectly fair to hon. Members opposite. The House will remember that, following the 1947 Act, over 1,000 road haulage undertakings in this country were acquired by the British Transport Commission and, in addition to paying for the vehicles, the Commission also paid a figure for goodwill. This is in the Report which we are discussing tonight, and the figure is £33 million.
The greater part of that figure was based on compensation for cessation of business, and it was calculated on a basis of from two to five years' profits of the undertakings that were taken over. It is fair to assume—indeed, it is more than fair—that the number of years' profits taken might have been, on the average, shall we say, four years. In that event, one deduces that the profits of the acquired undertakings were of the order of approximately £8 million a year.
What has happened since? British Road Services—and these figures are in the Report, and are not in dispute—made a gross operating surplus in 1949—the first really full year—of nearly £1½ million, in the second year a loss of over £1 million, and, last year, an operating surplus of about £.3¼ million. In other words, over the three years, a gross surplus of just over £3½ million, or a yearly average of £1,100,000. That is in contrast with the profits of the acquired undertakings of £8 million year by year for the years preceding 1947, which I submit to the House means that, certainly from the point of view of profitability, the acquired undertakings were seven times more profitable than since they have been acquired by the British Transport Commission.
Let me put it in another way, which I think will emphasise the point I am making. The British Transport Commission paid, on the average, for the vehicles they took over, £2,000 in compensation for the vehicles themselves and the goodwill, and, if hon. Members opposite care to work out, as I have done, what the surplus per annum has been, on each of these vehicles during the last three years, the surplus per vehicle, before we take into account central charges, is £31.
What a business achievement! What audacity on the part of hon. Members opposite, in face of these figures, to come to the House and play down the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend that British Road Services is not an efficient organisation.

Mr. J. Harrison: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is very refreshing to listen to him, after some of the speeches we have heard, and, in particular, that from the Liberal Party. What I want to ask him is this. He points out to us very clearly what has been achieved in the last three years regarding profits on the basis of what was paid for the business. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wittingly mislead the House in this connection, because he knows full well, or should know, that most of the fixed assets, most of the lorries, bought by the British Transport Commission have been completely renewed and replaced during the last three years. Very few have been simply renovated, but most have been completely replaced. Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman address himself to that part of the Amendment to the Motion which contains the phrase—
seriously impeded the interchange of goods.
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks about that in conjunction with the financial situation?

Mr. Bevins: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to pursue my speech in my own way, I shall try to answer his second point in a moment or two. As regards his first question, I am far from accepting it as a fact that all the vehicles acquired by the British Transport Commission have been completely renewed or substituted. After all, the process of maintenance is continuous, and I should be the last man to believe that private enterprise or the British Transport Commission was incapable of doing that. Therefore, I do not think that there is a great deal in the hon. Gentleman's interjection.
I should like to underline what I have been saying. From a financial standpoint, the profits earned by the private firms before they were acquired by the Commission were seven times the level of the post-1947 profits earned by the British Transport Commission. If that were the case, and if that were the end of the story, perhaps it would not be too bad,

but that, indeed, is only the beginning of the story.
I realise perfectly well that there are some hon. Members opposite who are perhaps a little sensitive when they hear allusions to interest or central charges, but the House ought to be reminded in a debate of this sort that, when central charges are taken into account, the figures for the last three years' working of British Road Services show a loss of almost £4 million.
Moreover, it does not even end there, because, since the British Transport Commission has been running these acquired undertakings, as far as I can understand from the Report now in our possession, not a single penny has been paid by taxation on the earnings of British Road Services, whereas the whole House knows that, for years and years before the acquisition of the undertakings, an annual figure by way of Income Tax and Profits Tax of at least £4 million was contributed by private firms in this country. I wonder if hon. Members opposite ever pause to consider what the state of the national budget and what the maintenance of our social services would be if the private sector of our economy housed as many white elephants as the British Transport Commission.
I do not want to make a long speech, but there is one further point which I think needs to be made. The right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) took great pride this afternoon in the improved condition of vehicles, depots, and all the rest of the paraphernalia of British Road Services. I remember very vividly the references made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who now sits on the Front Bench opposite, in the previous debate, in which both he and the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) said that not only was the condition of the vehicles, the depots, and all the rest of it much better than it used to be, but that the vehicles were better maintained, and that the safety of pedestrians and motorists on the road was greater than in the bad old days when the gentlemen who are supposed to be prompting myself and my hon. Friends tonight had free play on the roads.
Before I conclude, I would point out that when the British Transport Commission came into existence in 1946–47


they arranged certain insurance cover which was principally, although not exclusively, for vehicles run by British Road Services. But the accident record of British Road Services has been such that during the last few days the insurers have increased the rate of charge by 100 per cent. That, I think, is a far better answer to the accusations made against private enterprise than any vague or woolly statements made either in this debate or in the last one.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the hon. Gentleman mind telling us a little more about this? Is he saying that the insurers have increased the rate charged to the Road Haulage Executive, but have left other road hauliers at the old rate, and that this has happened within the last few days?

Mr. Bevins: It has happened in the last few days and has been widely reported in the Press, especially in the financial Press. Of course, it has nothing whatever to do with the rates charged to private hauliers or to other people. This is a single insurance contract which is considered entirely on its merits and on the basis of experience.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. We certainly saw these reports and saw the deduction which the hon. Member has now drawn being made by one of his colleagues at an earlier date. Will he now tell us what was the reply made by the public relations officer of the Road Haulage Executive to this allegation in which he denied that it had any relation to the accident rate?

Mr. Bevins: So much is said by the public relations officer of the Road Haulage Executive that one cannot keep track of all he does say. But what I would say, having had some small connection with the insurance business years ago, is that when a contract of this sort is negotiated, whether rates go up or down depends almost exclusively on the number of claims made.

Mr. Callaghan: Does it not also depend on the risks insured against, on the number of vehicles insured and on a whole number of other factors, and is not the plain truth that the Road Haulage Executive have themselves altered the terms of the insurance because they are covering their vehicles in a different

way? Why does not the hon. Gentleman be honest about it?

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman is really clutching at straws. I am perfectly willing to have a chat with him at the end of this debate, but I do not want to weary the House with details. Obviously, the hon Gentleman knows even better than I that the increase in the number of vehicles during the last year or two has been relatively small, and I think I am right in saying that there has been no important change in the nature of the cover sought by the British Road Services. That is all by the way, but I think it tends to illustrate that the statements made by various hon. Members opposite and by the hon. Gentleman himself in the course of this and the previous debate were rather off the mark.
I will conclude by making this one straightforward observation. For many years past I have taken a very close interest in the transport problem. It is perfectly true that I have not been engaged in the industry in peace-time, but I was privileged to serve in His Majesty's Forces during the last war when I gained some idea of transport working both in this country and overseas. I am perfectly convinced that the proposals embodied in the White Paper produced by Her Majesty's Government are in the interests of the economic future and welfare of this country.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. William Reid: In intervening in this debate I do not propose to follow hon. Members who have dealt fairly exclusively with the road haulage part of our national transport, but will endeavour to deal exclusively with the passenger transport services as outlined in the fourth annual Report of the British Transport Commission which we are supposed to be discussing this afternoon.
Since the inception of the 1947 Transport Act, private and public discussions have centred in Section 63 of that Act which relates to the preparation of the whole area of road passenger transport schemes. This Section authorises the Transport Commission to submit to the Minister of Transport a scheme for co-ordinating the passenger transport services and for the provision of adequate, suitable and efficient passenger road trans-


port services in any area. Furthermore, the Commision are instructed to review as soon as possible the passenger road transport services in Great Britain with a view to determining the areas for which such schemes are to be submitted.
I am going to confine my remarks to an area I know particularly well in the West of Scotland, taking the City of Glasgow as a pivotal point. Within a radius of 20 miles of the City of Glasgow, an area which includes more than one-third of the population of Scotland, there are a number of competing forms of transport. First, there is the Glasgow Corporation Municipal Transport Department which—and this is probably unknown to many hon. Members—is the largest municipal transport undertaking in the world. I had the honour to be Chairman of that Committee for many years.
That Department operates 1,138 tram cars, 838 motor buses, 65 trolley buses and 50 subway cars. The following figures indicate the importance of this undertaking: capital expenditure £12,458,000, annual revenue £5,700,000, passenger vehicle miles run per annum 62 million, passengers carried per annum 804 million, number of vehicles operated 2,000.
A second competing transport undertaking in that area is the S.M.T. bus services, and, thirdly, the British Transport Commission operate surburban railway services. The overlapping that takes place owing to these competing forms of transport has created a state of chaos over the whole of the West of Scotland. I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport and hon. Members on both sides of the House to page 3 of the Report which is now before us where, with reference to Glasgow Passenger Transport it is stated:
The Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir Robert Inglis, completed their survey and their Report was published in October. The Report recommends the integration of road and rail services in the area and equalisation of the fares charged by the different systems. It also recommends the electrification of the railway suburban lines and proposes that Buchanan Street and Queen Street (High Level) stations should be amalgamated on the site of the former to serve as a new terminus on the north side of the city.
The Commission feel that an important contribution to the solution of the Glasgow transport problem has been made by the Committee and they have invited the comments and

suggestions of the Glasgow Corporation and all other authorities interested in transport and town planning. Before such a costly scheme could be adopted, the closest examination of all its aspects is required, particularly in view of the present restrictions on capital investment.
I appeal to the Minister of Transport and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider the setting up of one or two regional transport boards for Scotland, similar to the regional boards set up to operate the National Health Service. In that Service four regional hospital boards were set up—one for the west of Scotland, the second for the east of Scotland, the third for Aberdeen and district, and the fourth for Inverness and district.
The Inglis Report, to which reference is made in the annual report of the Commission, recommends strongly the integration of all road and rail services in this area and the equalisation of fares. I suggest further the consideration of electrification of the suburban railway services in this area now being operated by the Transport Commission. I also suggest the extension of the Glasgow Corporation Subway.
That subway was constructed 60 years ago. It is the only subway in this country outside London. It is the only subway in the world which has shown a profit during the last 10 years. There was a small deficit last year but prior to that, from the time when the Labour administration in the Glasgow Corporation electrified the system, it was the only subway in the world which was showing a profit.
When it was constructed the population of the city was only one-half what it is today. With the extension of the city boundaries the subway is now totally inadequate to meet present requirements. I suggest that it should be extended to tap some of the most densely populated districts round the city, such as Shettleston, Springburn, Maryhill, Scotstoun, Mosspark, Pollok—and I am sure I have here the support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith)—Rutherglen, and Cambuslang.
Such an extended subway, linked with electrified suburban services, would cut


out much wasteful competition and would effect tremendous economies which could be used to reduce fare charges. Such a grandiose scheme could only be launched if grants were available from the Exchequer. But I would remind the Minister that the Glasgow Corporation has been one of the largest contributors to Exchequer funds for many years. The average sum paid as licence charges on their bus fleet works out at £72,000 per annum, and out of such large payments Glasgow has never received one penny piece in return.
I submit that those facts should be borne in mind when this Report of the Transport Commission is being considered. When Lord Hurcomb was the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Transport he read a paper entitled "The Growth of Passenger Traffic in Great Britain and Some Features of its Regulation" at a meeting of the Municipal Passenger Transport Associations' annual conference as far back as June, 1933.
This paper is well worth studying in relation to the present position of the municipalities and I cannot do better than conclude by quoting the last paragraph of his Report:
What is to be the relation between the great municipalities and the railway companies serving their areas? What are the conditions and what are likely to be the results of electrification of suburban railway services in our more thickly populated industrial districts?
What is to be the relation between the municipal services and those of private operators in the same neighbourhood? Are existing agreements and modes of co-operation capable of development and application elsewhere? Are new and more comprehensive schemes of co-ordination practicable and desirable?
Such questions as these will provide ample subjects of discussion at annual meetings, ample food for thought as we sit in our industrial offices and, no doubt, in due course a fruitful sphere of action, since in the development of its administration transport cannot stand still.
I have endeavoured, though very imperfectly, to urge the unification of the transport services in the West of Scotland. If the Minister will do me the honour of at least considering these suggestions, then my intervention in this debate will not have been in vain.

7.13 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: I am sure that the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. W. Reid) will regard it as an unwarranted impertinence for a

representative of a mere English constituency to enter into the interesting topics relating to the passenger transport arrangements in the City of Glasgow. Accordingly, I propose to refrain from doing so, except to make one comment. I observed that the hon. Gentleman did not tell the House what would be the effect upon passenger fares in Glasgow of the implementation of the Inglis Report.
I myself am always a little doubtful about the merits of these schemes for equalising fares. Our experience of fare equalisation in London has been that those fares which were formerly cheap have become more expensive, and those fares which were always high are no lower. I suspect that one of the consequences of the equalisation of fares in the City of Glasgow might very well be to produce the same result.
There have been one or two expressions which have echoed through this debate, as, indeed, they echo through all our debates upon this subject. Hon. Members opposite appear to be obsessed with the magic of the expression "integration." In the debate on the White Paper three months ago I noticed that they could not resist the temptation to develop the advantages of what was then called "co-ordination." In that debate the expression "co-ordination" was used by hon. Members opposite about 30 times. "Integration" was not so popular then. It was used upon no more than 17 or 18 occasions.

Mr. Sparks: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will only study the many Reports of Commissions established over the years, he will find that those words have been mentioned many more times than the number which he has suggested.

Sir G. Hutchinson: I can assure the hon. Member that I am very conscious indeed of the mischief which has been done by the fascination over the minds of persons in the transport industry and, I fear, outside it, too, of these two meaningless expressions. I am not sure that the Commission themselves have not added to the number of these magic phrases.
In the introduction to their Report, which is signed by Lord Hurcomb, to whom my right hon. Friend has paid such a handsome tribute—although I am bound to say that if Lord Hurcomb's


views are really expressed in the introduction to the Report I would have thought that he ought no longer to be Chairman of the Transport Commission—the Commission say that what they are seeking to do is to "achieve equilibrium." I am not at all clear what is really the implication of that expression. But, there again, I suspect that one of the consequences of "achieving equilibrium" will be that that which was once cheap will become expensive and that which is now expensive will certainly not become cheaper. I am sorry that the Commission have apparently fallen victims to this habit of thinking in phrases, which is not only misleading in this House but in the country, too, on this important subject of transport.
The question which the House has to consider tonight is whether this system of what has been called "integration" will give the country a system of transport which trade and industry require. I emphasise "a system which trade and industry require." Transport costs, as the House knows, are an essential factor in the costs of industrial production. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) to read flattering passages from "Transport Management." These are the views of the transport experts. The right hon. Gentleman did not read to the House the views of the traders who had got to use the transport services. I submit that it is the views of the traders themselves which have really got to determine in the end what should be the character of the transport system which we set up in this country.
Today, when the need to reduce the cost of industrial production is more necessary than it has ever been before if we are to achieve a balance in our overseas payments, the nation just cannot afford a transport system which is expensive or extravagant. We have got to find some way of keeping transport costs down. Cheapness, I submit, is the first—I will not say the only essential, but a vitally important factor—

Mr. Mellish: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the proposals of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the disintegration of transport and the levy to be applied to C licence holders will make transport any cheaper?

Sir G. Hutchinson: Indeed I do.

Mr. Mellish: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will tell us how.

Sir G. Hutchinson: I think that is one of the great merits of the scheme which my right hon. Friend is going to propose. What I have said about the cheapness of the carriage of merchandise applies with equal force to the carriage of passengers. In London, travelling costs are an important factor in the costs of industrial production.
Hon. Members opposite have said that the Transport Commission is a new undertaking which has yet to prove itself. That is true. It is only four years old and we are told that we ought to give it an opportunity to grow up. But we can judge the results of the system of integration which the Transport Commission are at present intent on carrying out. We can judge the results of what they propose to do by the results which have been achieved by the London Transport Executive and by their predecessor, the London Passenger Transport Board.
As I understand, the Transport Commission aim at introducing into national transport precisely those conditions which the London Passenger Transport Board was created to introduce into the London passenger transport service. The Transport Commission aims at bringing about precisely the same results by the same methods.
First, there is common ownership. All the existing separate undertakings are to be brought together and merged into a common whole. Then there is to be the equalisation of charges over a wide area. The London Transport Executive is not an organisation that has yet to prove itself; it is an established undertaking, now more than 18 years old. By its results the consequences of this form of integration can be fairly judged.
Precisely the same advantages which were claimed for the London Passenger Transport Board when it was brought into existence in 1933, and in the debates which took place in the House on the earlier Bill of 1931, are claimed today for the system which the Transport Commission are endeavouring to introduce.
I should like to read a passage from the introduction to the Commission's Report which echoes with a striking resemblance the arguments which were


advanced in 1931 and 1933 when the London Transport Executive was being introduced. The Chairman of the Commissioners reports:
In 1951 the programme of acquisition of long distance haulage undertakings, in accordance with the terms of the Transport Act, 1947, was virtually completed, and the way was prepared for many important steps in the process of integrating"—
we have that word again—
the different forms of transport, from which large economies would eventually result.
There is something singularly reminiscent about that particular passage. We are entitled to examine the achievements of the London Transport Executive to see how far they have fulfilled the promises which were made on their behalf by their advocates in the Socialist Party 20 years ago.
What has happened? In the first six years of its existence—which, after all, were years of peace, when the undertaking was not handicapped by the legacy of difficult conditions following a war—the result of integration was that the cost of transport in London was substantially the same as it had been in the days of the separate undertakings. In so far as there was any change it was upwards and not downwards. From Table 7 of the Report one sees that the increase in London fares between 1939 and 1951 was 43 per cent., compared with a higher percentage for undertakings outside London.
The difference was attributable very largely not to the fact that the London Transport Executive had succeeded in keeping down the cost of travel; it was due to the fact that on many routes in London the fares were still exceptionally low, for certain historical reasons. On other routes they were exceptionally high. In 1951 the average increase in fares in London was less than the increase in other parts of the country, but it would be wrong to draw from that fact the inference that the London Transport Executive had succeeded in absorbing a greater proportion of their operating costs than undertakings outside London had done.
What have been the consequences of integration in the London Passenger Transport Board? Today the travelling population of London is in open and undisguised revolt against the charges of

the London Passenger Transport Board. No Member who sits for a London division can doubt that. That is one of the consequences of integration.

Mr. Sparks: The Minister says that we have not had it.

Sir G. Hutchinson: The hon. Member says that the Minister says we have not had it. The Minister is seeking to prevent the same process overtaking the national transport system that has brought us to our present pass in London transport. That is the whole point of the observation which I am making.
What happened in London? The first step taken was to "co-ordinate" or "integrate" all the separate undertakings which had functioned in different parts of London before the Transport Board was formed. In those days there was a rival scheme which, I think, was sponsored by the London County Council, which had, perhaps, a better insight into such matters then than it has now. The rival scheme proposed that the separate undertakings should be retained as separate entities and that a body should be set up and given the task of co-ordinating the working of those separate undertakings.
What would have happened if that had been done? The tramway undertakings carried their passengers more cheaply than the Transport Board has ever been able to do. Croydon was one—and my own borough of Ilford was another—whose undertakings carried their passengers more cheaply than the Transport Board ever have done. They paid the same rates as the transport, undertaking. One of the reasons for their being cheaper was that they had control of their own supplies of electricity. They were their own generators and their own suppliers. That is the sort of integration that transport in London has always required. It is not integration with other forms of transport alone but integration with the local authorities and the various services which those authorities used to command.
In the provinces this is not so. In the great provincial cities the control which the local authorities exercised over their passenger undertakings was a powerful instrument in planning the development of their cities. But that never had been possible in London. The London Transport Executive pursues its own sweet way


in one direction and the local authorities pursue their own way in another direction.
It is the destruction of those separate and independent undertakings which, in my judgment, has produced this outstanding problem of the cost of passenger transport in Central London. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that the Transport Executive is to continue, although not in the same form, or not perhaps with the same name. I do not much mind by which name it is known. I know the name which is commonly used for it by many of its passengers, but I would not recommend my right hon. Friend to adopt that.
Let me conclude with this observation. I think my right hon. Friend will have a very difficult task in reducing the cost of passenger transport in London. I say that for this reason. As I see it, the consequences of the policy of the Transport Executive and its predecessor has been to create in London a system of transport which is not capable of being worked cheaply. Their policy, over 20 years, has involved the extension of the tube railways, the conversion of the tube railways into suburban railways, for which they were never really designed; and the running of long-distance bus services from distant terminal points on one side of London to distant terminal points on the other side, passing through the most congested streets in the centre, which has produced a multitude of omnibuses in the Strand. Oxford Street and Regent Street during the off-rush hours with 10 or 12 or 20 passengers in a 56-seater bus.
I say that the system which has been created by this integration or co-ordination of London transport is a system which my right hon. Friend will find it extremely difficult to work cheaply. He embarks upon his task with my best wishes. Whatever I can do to assist him in this difficult job, I will do, but I warn him that it will be difficult to turn the clock back again and to get rid of the consequences of integration in London's transport.
I hope that will be a warning to hon. Members opposite not to be so unwise as to introduce into our national haulage system or our national passenger transport system precisely those conditions which have fastened an expensive and

extravagant transport system on the necks of the unfortunate London population.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Percy Collick: There are very few comments which I desire to make on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson). I got the impression from what he said, rightly or wrongly, that he would prefer that Londoners should go back to the very old days when private enterprise held sway in London.

Sir G. Hutchinson: Not only private enterprise, but a very considerable measure of municipal enterprise, too.

Mr. Collick: All I can say is that if he put that to the test of the people of London, he would get exactly the same answer as his party recently got in the London County Council elections. I am not unfamiliar with the hon. and learned Gentleman's record on the L.C.C., and I imagine that the sort of notions he has been putting before the House are probably the same as those which he advocated in the recent L.C.C. elections.

Mr. Mellish: The same old rubbish.

Mr. Collick: If that be the case, all I can say is that, just as the people of London so effectively gave the Tories the answer in the last L.C.C. elections, so the present Government will find, when they put their transport proposals to the people of this country, that what Dundee did last week will be repeated over and over again in constituencies up and down the country.

Sir G. Hutchinson: I am sorry to interrupt, but surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that another explanation of the result of the London County Council elections is that the public blamed the Tories for the consequences of the London Passenger Transport Board.

Mr. Collick: I should be going a little wide of the debate if I started to enter that discussion, although I hope to say something about it a little later. Whatever either side of the House may disagree about in the debate, we would probably all agree that this fourth annual Report of the British Transport Commission is an exceedingly creditable document. First of all, I think the Commission are


entitled to congratulations for having produced such a document, full of information—a perfectly readable document; and I think the Minister did at least pay compliments to the Commission for that, and those were about his only compliments.
I will analyse a little later other aspects of what the Minister said, but at least we are on common ground when I say that he paid compliments to the Transport Commission for the production of this Report and for the way the job had been done. I take the view that what is recorded in this Report does the Commission amazing credit. It is very easy for hon. Members opposite, like the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North, to try to make play with words like integration and co-ordination. But hon. Members can play about with words like that.

Mr. Partridge: That is what this Report plays about with.

Mr. Collick: Anybody who speaks with knowledge of transport, I do not care whether he sits on this side of the House or that, must at least recognise that almost every commission and committee of inquiry which has inquired into the Transport problem of this country, has always, by and large, reached this conclusion—that there ought to be the utmost integration of all forms of transport in order that the users of transport should have the most efficient transport service at their disposal. Recognising the economic situation of the country, if there is one thing, I should have thought, that any Government would be seriously concerned about, it is to see that the capital sums invested in the railways and in road transport are used to the utmost possible advantage. If this nation is to have a sensible transport policy, that certainly must be its basic consideration.
One of the features of this Report—and I am astonished that hon. Members opposite seem to make light of it—is that it refers, in road haulage, to the fact that since the Transport Commission came into being, the Road Haulage Executive have been responsible for bringing within their orbit no less than 3,760 separate undertakings. Anybody on either side of the House who has any business experience at all, and who leaves his political prejudices aside for a moment, must

recognise that to bring 3,760 organisations into one entity is a tremendous task. All that I can say to anybody who wants to dispute that is that if he would have a word with any of the directors of Unilever, or any of the big organisations, and ask for their views on that aspect of the matter, I am certain he would find that they would agree with me. It is a terrific job to bring together thousands of separate organisations such as those.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it worth it?

Mr. Collick: I shall come to that in a moment. Not only do I think it is worth it, but I think that if we are to make full use of the capital assets in road and in rail, as this nation must in its present circumstances, that is the only way we can do it, because unless we do weld these organisations together, to bring them to a high degree of efficient service, we shall not have the service. Nothing less than that seems to me to be practicable.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Collick: Certainly.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Gentleman is talking almost entirely of the interests of the organisation itself, and advocating a comprehensive design which pleases the organisation as the producing or purveying organisation of transport, without a word as to whether this grand design is in the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Collick: Quite obviously, I should have expected the noble Lord to have taken that much for granted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Quite obviously, it only fulfils its function to the degree that it is giving efficient service to the users of transport. That is the object, and my contention is that only by unifying all these multifarious organisations will it be possible to achieve a high degree of service for the users of transport.
What I would say is this—and I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), the late Minister, referred to it—that anybody today who sees the Road Haulage Executive's vehicles up and down the country must be struck by one of two things. I think that the ordinary person amongst the general public is struck first of all by


the high degree of the quality of the vehicles. It used to be my job at one time in my life to go up and down the roads from one end of Britain to another.
I look back to the 'thirties and recall the sort of conditions in which road vehicles were then, and the sort of conditions under which long distance road haulage drivers were working, and the enormous number of prosecutions there were because road haulage employers were not observing the elementary conditions which Parliament had laid down. I contrast all that with the degree of efficiency and with the standard of the vehicles of today, and the relatively better conditions under which the employees are working today. I believe that any impartial person making that contrast would have to recognise that the change that there has been is for good.
The amazing thing to me is that after three short years, when the Road Haulage Executive has just got the thing into something like real shape, and when at last it has been made a profitable enterprise, along comes the party opposite—and what do they propose to do? To smash this machine up and sell it out to their friends. I want to warn them—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite will find that this is no laughing matter as the years go on—that it is very far from being a laughing matter. The hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) said—quite rightly—when the House last debated this matter that he had not spoken to one single person in the transport industry who had had a good word to say for the Government's White Paper proposals.

Mr. G. Wilson: He cannot have spoken to many.

Mr. Collick: Not one good word. It has gone much beyond that now, and anybody who speaks with knowledge of transport today knows that there are two words being used in the road transport industry. I want the Minister to remember this. The two words now that have gained common currency in the long distance road haulage industry are "the racket." The present Government's proposals in regard to long distance haulage are talked about as being "The racket." [Interruption.] The hon. and Gallant Gentleman will be more than astonished.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I did not say "astonished." I said the hon. Gentleman wants to stop it.

Hon. Members: We will.

Mr. Collick: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says we ought to stop it. My suggestion to him is that he accepts the advice of the hon. Member for Abingdon. There are enough people on the back benches opposite to influence the Minister and the Government. They can stop it; and they ought to stop it, if they have any regard to the public interest, before the House comes back in October.
The Minister today was talking quite a lot not so much about the Transport Commission's Annual Report as about the present Government's proposals. I think that the most important thing about these proposals is the thing that he avoided saying one word about. The notion seems to be that the Government are intending to sell out this magnificent fleet of the Road Haulage Executive by auction in what they call "units"—

Mr. Angus Maude: Operable units.

Mr. Collick: What is that going to cost the public Exchequer? Is it to be £10 million, or is it to be £20 million?

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Hon. Members opposite do not know.

Brigadier Clarke: It is cheaper than groundnuts, anyway.

Sir G. Hutchinson: Surely, the £30 million estimated to be paid for the goodwill has already been lost by the Transport Commission.

Mr. Collick: Let us have a look at the picture. Parliament decides to set up this Transport Commission. The Road Haulage Executive becomes part of its machinery. In this process these 3,760 undertakings are taken over. In the process of taking them over huge sums of public money are paid for the goodwill of those undertakings—

Mr. Partridge: Which existed.

Mr. Collick: Which existed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In some cases.

Mr. Collick: Having taken £10 million of public money which the Transport


Commission has paid for the goodwill of those businesses, the present Government are now proposing to knock them down at scrap prices.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Partridge: Who said that?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: At current value.

Mr. Collick: The term "current value" is not used in the White Paper. I do not want to provoke unnecessary argument about the details of what is to be done, but what the Government are proposing to do—and this cannot be denied—is to sell out these road transport vehicles in what they call operable units by auction, and the Government themselves—not my party; not the people on these benches—the Government themselves estimate, if I follow their proposals at all, that in the process of doing this, £10 million or £20 million of public money will have gone down the drain.

Mr. G. Wilson: It has gone down.

Mr. Collick: What a lovely proposition this really is, if one looks at it dispassionately. This is where the term "racket" appears to come in. The Road Haulage Executive buys these vehicles at millions of pounds for the goodwill, and after the job has just been done, the Tory Party come in and say, "Sell these back to the boys." Is not that it? "Sell these back to the boys, and never mind if you have given them £10 million or £20 million already for the good will. Sell them back now at knock-out prices." That, in effect, is what it comes to. If those are the Government's proposals, put them to the test in the country and they will find that they will get the Dundee results again, and again, and again.

Mr. Holt: Has not the hon. Gentleman seen the Gallup poll results in the "News Chronicle" this morning?

Mr. Collick: I confess that I have not seen the Gallup poll results in the "News Chronicle" In any case, I am not much concerned about Gallup polls. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to talk about the "News Chronicle" he might equally well read the very useful series of articles on the Transport Commission which the "News Chronicle" are publishing, in which he will find quite a lot of very useful information.
The Minister said not one word about this sum of money which it is estimated will be lost.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The fact that the hon. Gentleman is so surprised that discussion of the Bill is in order is no reason why the Bill should be grossly misquoted. There is no such proposal whatever to do anything in that form. The provision, as the hon. Gentleman I think knows, is for the levy to bear the loss. The loss is not being borne by the general taxpayer.

Mr. Collick: All I can say is that certainly the Government White Paper did not make any propositions such as that clear at all. Certainly there was reference to the levy, but there has been no suggestion that what comes from the levy will equate this loss of £10 million or £20 million. I want to be quite fair to the Minister. After all, he is relatively new in his office and we are all very pleased and willing to hear what he says, but not once, either in the last debate or in the debate today, has any such contention been put forward.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I developed the theme at great length in the debate on the White Paper, and today I said that the levy had two purposes. The first purpose, I said, was not seriously challenged by many people now, and that was to bear any loss incurred on the sale through the loss of goodwill. Then I went on to deal with the second purpose. If the hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find it all there.

Mr. Collick: I have the impression, rightly or wrongly—we shall come back to all this, of course, when the House meets again—that this levy idea was to make up the loss which the Transport Commission might experience from the loss of revenue coming from the road haulage undertaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, we shall see. We shall have lots of time to argue this out as the days go by.
Now I want to come to one other aspect of the matter which seems to me to need some further statement. In the criticisms of the Road Haulage Executive we have had today what we had from the Prime Minister in the previous debate, namely, a wild assumption—and I choose the words deliberately—about the huge number of administrative workers carried by the Road Haulage Executive in con-


tradistinction to private enterprise. Today the Minister went off on something very much along the same sort of line. The Prime Minister was shown up on this in the last debate when he used a lot of figures about the number of staff alleged to be at the headquarters of the Road Haulage Executive; when those figures were analysed they were shown to be utterly ridiculous, as those of us on these benches thought they were when used.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: "Trap-door" figures.

Mr. Collick: They may well have been "trap-door" figures. The Minister today developed something along the same lines about the number of people, clerks and so on, who were employed by the Road Haulage Executive in an overloaded sort of fashion. I thought that was the crux of his criticism—the suggestion that the Road Haulage Executive were carrying far too many clerical workers having regard to the number of vehicles operating.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was referring solely to the increase in staff this year. I have not at the moment got the figures before me, but I will readily give them later. I think the figure for the number of new vehicles was 1,333, and I referred to the number of people taken on for those vehicles, and then to the normal increase in staff. I said that these were significant figures, but that I was not going to draw a great deal from them because I was reluctant to give the impression that I thought there ought not to be a certain number of people behind the lines, as it were, getting the vehicles ready for the road.

Mr. Collick: All that the Minister says confirms what I was saying, that the inference to be drawn from his comments was that there were too many clerical and other such workers employed having regard to the number of lorries owned by the Road Haulage Executive. I want to answer that line of criticism from what I think is an unimpeachable source. If the Minister cares to consult "Modern Transport"—which is recognised in the transport occupation as authoritative on such matters—on this very point of the number of clerks, executive and overhead people connected with the road haulage

undertaking of the Transport Commission and privately-owned industry, he will find that this is what they say in their edition of 31st May of this year:
Exact comparison with the general run of haulage businesses in which there were so many part-time administrative workers are not, of course, possible. Taking, however, data submitted at acquisition by 96 rather larger undertakings, managers represent 3.7 of the total as compared with 0.46 per cent. in the Road Haulage Executive, clerical staff were 14.87 per cent. as compared with 13.12 per cent. in the Road Haulage Executive, and operating staff were 59.48 per cent. as compared with over 67 per cent. in the Road Haulage Executive.
Quite clearly, according to that analysis the advantages are with the Road Haulage Executive, and therefore I think it is rather a false point to try to carry further the inference that the Road Haulage Executive are carrying such a large number of clerical workers, and so on, having regard to the number of vehicles they are operating.
Having said that, I want now to come to one or two points on the Transport Commission Report, and in this I shall probably be alone on these benches, but that does not deter me from saying what I am proposing to say. I recognise that the Minister has not had too much time to make himself fully aware of all the details that there are in a great industry like transport, but I was astonished today to hear him talking about railways and giving the House the impression—I do not think he will dissent from this—that the financial side of the railways was quite good for the future.
That is as I understood his remarks, and I do not think he will dissent from that. There were other speakers, possibly on these benches, who would share the same view. I do not share that view. Indeed, not only do I not share that view but I take an absolutely contrary one, and I tell the Minister now that if the Government's proposals do become effective—and we are by no means certain of that—and if they do take further traffic from the railways, as is implicit in their White Paper, because they anticipate a further loss of traffic from rail to road, then I say without much hesitation that it is my view that where the Transport Commission has struck "evens," as it were, they will not continue to do that.
I admire the way in which the Minister comes to that Box and reads a state-


ment involving a point like this and so often gets away with it. I do not want to chastise the Minister about that, because he does it very well, and I do not want to go over the story of fares. I would like to do that another time.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Another racket.

Mr. Collick: There is something more to it than that. The trouble with this Government, if they do not mind my saying so—

Mr. Poole: Make it troubles.

Mr. Collick: The troubles with this Government is that they have too many Ministers of Transport. They have the nominal holder of the office—and I hope that the present Minister of Transport will prove himself to be more than a nominal holder of the office—they have the noble Lord who sits in another place, whom they call the Minister for Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power; and they have the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who takes it upon himself to barge in at any odd moment on issues of transport about which he knows so little, and which caused so much embarrassment, as we saw, to the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) when he had the ignominious part of sitting on the Front Bench opposite unable to reply to 12 Questions on the Order Paper, because, for that day, the Prime Minister had barged in and taken over the responsibility, with all the subsequent difficulties.
Half of those difficulties have arisen just because of that, This is what I object to about the whole procedure. We have a rates tribunal which sits for months on end examining proposals about the increased transport rates. When they have done their work and made their recommendations, in barges the Prime Minister, not on the merits of the case, but because the elections in the country have gone against his party, and he says, "No, no, the Transport Commission must not put up fares like this. The borough council elections are coming and we shall have what happened in the London County Council elections." So the edict was laid down that the Transport Commission were not to operate these increased fares. Subsequently, talks

were held between the Minister and the Transport Commission, and they agreed on the fares.
The effect of this is that the Transport Commission are to be deprived of £1,800,000 of revenue, which properly belongs to them, because of the Government interference. The Transport Commission are to lose this £1,800,000 and the Government have not even the decency to make good to the Transport Commission that sum of money of which they have deprived them.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: They have lost the election as well.

Mr. Collick: Having deprived the Commission of that amount of income, the Minister has the audacity to say that the railways will have no difficulty about their income in the future. I do not share that view at all. My own view is that they will have immense difficulty in maintaining their position in the future. I repeat this because I hold this view very strongly.
The Commission make the point in their Report, that even if we take the total amount of losses in the whole of the years of their undertaking, it does not amount to what the Government took in one year towards the end of the war from railway operation in this country as surplus income. The Government of the country during the war days took £112 million out of railway operations. My own view always has been that if the railway industry were to be given justice at all, some of that money ought to be put back into the railway industry. I shall hold that view and I shall go on saying it, because I think that is the only sound way in which the financial operations of British Railways can be put on a stable basis.
I have two more important points which I wish to put before the House. I want to draw attention to something in the Report which I regard as exceedingly important. In the last Parliament I drew attention to what I thought was a serious matter in the loss of highly-skilled railway staff. British Railways are renowned throughout the world for their safety record.
Anyone who stands on Waterloo platform or at Liverpool Street, or at any of the London termini stations, and watches the hundreds of thousands of


people pouring into London and being taken out at night, not merely in good weather like this but during the fogs of winter and all the rest of it and pauses to remember that all these people are brought in and out of London and in and out of the other great provincial cities of this country, sometimes without the loss of single passenger life in a year—that was their record in 1950, when all these millions of passengers were carried without the loss of a single life—what a contrast to the slaughter on the roads when 450 people a month are killed!
This remarkable record of safety of British Railways which has no equal in the world is something which everyone ought to admire. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do."] I get a little impatient with the sort of speeches which we constantly heard from the benches opposite—little niggling criticism; never a word of compliment to British Railways, but every little thing that went wrong magnified a hundred times. If British Railways are renowned for a magnificent record of safety, that is due very largely to the high skill of the staff of British Railways down through the years. If one looks at the Report, the fears which I expressed to the House in the last Parliament are, I think, confirmed. The Report, on page 94, says this:
In the first half of the year, operating difficulties unprecedented in the history of the railway were experienced. The main cause was a serious shortage of staff"—
and in the next paragraph:
The shortage of staff was felt particularly at a number of important centres in the south and in the midlands, and as many as 250 scheduled freight trains had to be cancelled each day.
The third paragraph states, and this is what I want to draw the Minister's attention to, because here he has very important responsibilities:
and the possibility of a major breakdown in the railway transport system could not be ignored.
These are serious words in view of the loss of highly skilled railway operating staff. In view of the times through which we are moving it is amazing that much more consideration has not been given to the problem. I urge the Government, as I urged my Government, to do something to prevent this enormous

wastage of highly skilled railway operating men which occurs through the stupid policy of calling up every year thousands of highly skilled men for the Forces who are then virtually lost to the railway industry for ever.
There is another matter about which I am highly critical, and I want the Transport Commission to know it. On page 83 the Report, in reference to wages grades, says:
Meetings were held between representatives of the Commission, the Executives and the Trade Unions to discuss a possible basis for a pension scheme for the wages grade staff of the undertaking.
Because of its financial position the Railway Executive has not been able to give the staff standards of wages and labour to which they are entitled, and the result of its not having been able to do that has been that large numbers of highly skilled men, upon whom the safety of British Railways depends, have left the industry. If a serious crisis arose tomorrow the Minister and the country would be in for it.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is it not also true that because of the same difficulties we are finding recruitment into the service almost impossible?

Mr. Collick: That is equally true, and the Railway Executive has made reference to it. Before the war our railways were able to recruit a fairly good standard of labour because the permanent employment in the industry was a great attraction in those days. Nowadays a permanent job makes no appeal whatever, and, on the other hand, there is the disadvantage that transport workers, and locomotive men in particular, have to go on duty at all hours round the clock, and today people are not willing to enter an industry which holds that disadvantage unless there is a compensating advantage, and a compensating advantage is what is lacking.
I and many of my colleagues who have spent their lives in the industry hoped that the provision of a superannuation scheme would provide the advantage for the wages grades. I played a not unimportant part at one time in breaking down the ban against undertakings such as this being able to provide a superannuation scheme for the wages staff. The miners took advantage of it and now have the beginnings of a superannuation scheme,


and I admire them for it, but it is time that highly skilled railway operatives had such a scheme. A main line engineman can finish 40 years' strenuous service on main line trains from one end of the country to another—it is a shocking thing to say—without a penny in superannuation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It would be quite unfair to blame Lord Hurcomb. I and my predecessors know that Lord Hurcomb is deeply concerned about this. I am in the closest association with him in the matter, as were my predecessors. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are very many difficulties about it. Lord Hurcomb is fully conscious of them, and I know he is anxious to find a solution.

Mr. Poole: Put it in the new Bill.

Mr. Collick: I know Lord Hurcomb is conscious of the difficulties, for we were working on this towards the end of the war, but there has been ample time for the railwaymen to have a scheme if the miners have been able to do so.
I do not know whether Lord Hurcomb will agree with me, but I believe that much of the trouble is the financial difficulty, and unless the Minister finds some way of overcoming it the Transport Commission will remain with the problem of providing a worthwhile scheme. The Minister will not get the necessary staff to carry on these onerous duties unless a compensating advantage is offered, and a superannuation scheme would be a most important one. If the Minister will use his drive to have some such scheme prepared and embody it in the new Bill, I can promise him that that will be the one Clause in the Bill which will have the unanimous support of the House, although it will probably be the only one.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Although the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) has said so much since, I distinctly remember an observation in the early part of his speech from which I believe no one in the House will dissent. He said it was particularly necessary at present that the most economical and efficient use should be made of the nation's transport resources. The question which has so often been begged in speeches by the Opposition during the debate is whether the existing

organisation of transport under the 1947 Act secures that result better than any alternative organisation. One of the important features of the Report is the evidence it contains that the present organisation is unsatisfactory when viewed in that light.
To all outward appearances the Report of the Commission is uniform with its predecessors; it is the fourth of a series which in format, style and presentation are apparently as alike as peas. In reality, the fourth is very different in content from its three predecessors, for they were factual Reports of the Commission's activities during the years under consideration but this Report is the statement of a partisan case and an apologia for the nationalised industry as founded by the 1947 Act. The data which the Commission has presented has been selected and arranged in order to present one view only of the matter that we are debating. That is a serious criticism and one which I regret to be obliged to make.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question, so that he may be able to develop his speech properly?

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I am able to develop my speech properly without his assistance.
I wish to refer to what I consider to be the most outrageous misrepresentation of the many misrepresentations that the Report contains. Paragraph 111 compares the proportions of black-coated workers to vehicles in 1948 and 1951, and the argument is advanced that in 1948 when the Commission was operating with the undertakings in their pre-acquisition organisation the ratio of black-coated workers to vehicles was higher than in 1951. A little investigation of the facts will show the complete dishonesty of that statement. What, in fact, happened was this. In 1943 the Commission only acquired 248 comparatively small undertakings with 8,000 vehicles, and their administrative staff was over 0.5 per vehicles per motive unit. There was 4,654 administrative staff to 8,000 vehicles.
In 1949 came the major compulsory acquisition of long-distance undertakings. In that year 1,600 undertakings and nearly 27,000 vehicles were taken over, and when one looks to see the size of the staff taken over with those vehicles one


finds a very different picture. The proportion there of the staff taken over is only 0.25 per motive unit, and even if one includes the staff which the Commission recruited from outside the figure is still less than 0.3 motive unit.
What was happening in 1948 was stated by the Executive in their Report for that year in which they said:
The Executive did not take over an existing organisation and it was necessary therefore first to recruit staff for Headquarters and then for the Divisions. … The problem has been to build up a staff to deal with the immediate responsibilities of the Executive under the Transport Act without denuding the acquired undertakings.
In fact, as the Commission knew perfectly well when they wrote that paragraph, they were building up large overheads in staff in 1948 preparatory to the take over in the subsequent years. The figures selected for quotation for partisan purposes are deliberately biased.
Nevertheless, in spite of the efforts which have been made to throw a particular light upon the matter, the realities of the situation, which are particularly disquieting in regard to British Road Services, peep through the cracks. I would refer first of all to what seems to me to be an important statistic, the fuel consumption per ton transported. As my right hon. Friend pointed out in his speech, the tonnage of traffic moved during 1951 by British Road Services was the same as in the previous year, but the fuel consumption was up by nearly 18 per cent. That is a figure which does not argue an increase of efficiency in operation and in running.
Reference has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) to the extraordinary figures of staff wastage. If we look at Table VIII-3 in the statistics of the Commission we find there has been a labour turnover of nearly 30 per cent. No undertaking of this description can be efficient with a 30 per cent. labour turnover. It is common knowledge that the labour turnover in the undertakings which were acquired was nothing like that figure, and in case it might be thought that these figures only relate to administrative staff I would mention that the same percentage is true of the drivers. It is upon the experience of the drivers and upon their constant contacts with their customers at each end of their normal runs that the

efficiency and flexibility of a service of this sort to a large extent depends. These, therefore, are disquieting figures.
A good deal has been said about the apparent—and only apparent—working balance on the operations of the Road Haulage Executive, which amounts to between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent, of the gross working figure. Of course, when the central charges are taken into account, quite apart from the considerations which were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins), it is, in fact, seen that British Road Services are still not paying for themselves. So far from the roads in this organisation having to come to the assistance of the railways, it is the railways which are making the appearance of a profit in nationalised transport.
I would suggest in this connection that hon. Members should look at the remarkable diagram on page 20 of the Commission's Report which, side by side with the comparatively trivial results of British Road Services, shows the enormous and steady working balances achieved every year by British Railways. So far from the roads subsidising the railways in this organisation, it is the railways which are providing even the appearance of successful working.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether this is an argument against the proposed levy on road transport? It seems to be leading that way.

Mr. Powell: On the contrary, I am showing that British Road Services which are cited as being a profitable part of this nationalised industry, so far from being required under the present organisation to bolster up the railways are themselves being bolstered by the railways.
Then I would refer to the attempted nationalisation of road passenger transport. All the arguments which can be advanced for the nationalisation of freight transport can be advanced for the nationalisation of road passenger transport: but both the Commission and the former Minister of Transport have, in fact, been obliged tacitly to drop the whole thing. Nationalisation of road passenger transport is an admitted failure.
I want to come to what I think is the heart of the problem, and that is the


question of charges. It is interesting to follow through the growth of thought on this subject of the charges scheme since the Bill of 1946 was first presented to this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes). He said in his Second Reading speech:
For the first time in the history of transport, the British Transport Commissioners will be able to tackle the charges problem on a common-sense basis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 1635.]
He regarded a successful attack on the charges problem as one of the main justifications of the revolution which he was introducing in the organisation of transport.
This idea, growing and becoming dominantly insistent, can be traced through the four Reports of the Transport Commission. In their first Report they state:
Charges policy will be a key to effective integration.
In their second year Report they say:
To aid integration of the Commission's services and also to encourage the forwarding of traffic in economical loads, it is considered that the basis of the future classification should pay more regard than at present to loading capability the value factor … being reflected to a lesser degree
They were now coming to grips with the details of the charges problem.
In their third year they made this statement on the subject:
The introduction of new bases of charge for transport services is essential to the financial future of the Commission. The present position is impossible. The Commission have already announced their intention to propose railway rates which will take much greater account of the actual cost of the types of service on the one hand and what the competitive market"—
a very interesting expression—
will allow on the other.
And now, in the Report for this year, they have produced a statement on the subject of a charges scheme which, I think, may be regarded as a classic.

Mr. Lindgren: Greek?

Mr. Powell: I will read it in English.
There is no question … of forcing the customer away from road to rail. … All the Commission ask is that the customer shall pay the real cost of the services he selects, and that he shall not receive one service at its bare cost if he insists at the same time on the maintenance of other services at less than cost. Though, in the present state of the country's

financial and economic position, it is difficult to establish what the true long-term cost of different forms of transport will be, it is of vital importance ultimately that the true costs of the various services shall be brought home to the customer.
I think it would be difficult to better that statement of the essential importance of a charges scheme to the whole question of transport. Yet we find that when we turn from the theory, the professed theory, to reality, there is an extraordinary gulf. A charges scheme, and a complete charges scheme was, in the view of the Minister, to have been presented within two years of the Act coming into force. That two years was extended to four years; the four years was extended to six years, and at the latest stage of which we have knowledge there is no real evidence that the Commission are further forward in the production of a sound and practical scheme than they were at the beginning.
There is a document called "Draft Outline of Principles Proposed to be Embodied in a Charges Scheme" which was published by the Transport Commission at the end of 1949. In looking at it I was reminded of those Chinese boxes which are sometimes given to children and which, to their disappointment, are found to contain, as they are examined, one box within another, and within another; until in the end all one gets out of it is just a box. When I examined this draft outline to see what the principles were to be I read through until I got to this paragraph. It is headed, "Classification of Regulations and Instructions" and this is what are the principles:
The new classification obviously requires regulations which, as far as practicable, will be applicable to all services of the B.T.C. The draft Regulations which it is proposed to apply will he issued later.
But the Commission have from time to time given a clue as to the difficulties which they are encountering, and those difficulties, I believe, do lead us somewhere near the heart of this problem. Last year in their third Report, they said:
It is impossible that any such scheme can at present lay down a detailed basis for road haulage rates and charges.
Already therefore, nearly two years ago, they found themselves unable to cope with what was the underlying professed object, a co-ordinated scheme of charges which would bring road and rail charges into relationship. And this year, in their fourth Report, they say:


Only slow progress has been made with the difficult matter of rationalising the basis and mechanics of fixing fares and freight charges.
Why, then, have the Commission found it so difficult, difficult to the degree of impossibility, to do that which they themselves, and the fathers of the Act, realised was the essence and the key to the whole matter? It is because they were being asked to fill the jar of the Danaids, or, in the words of the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, that they had been entrusted with an impossible task.
The impossibility was that they were trying to reconcile two principles which within the structure of a universal state monopoly, are irreconcilable. The first principle is that which I have already quoted, the principle of charges based in general upon costs. But there is another principle. To that also the right hon. Member for East Ham, South made reference in his Second Reading speech at the end of 1946:
The Commissioners have had to carry through the task of integrating all forms of transport carried by the Bill and—this I would particularly emphasise—to see that all parts of the country are adequately served … It is only by a unified system, in which costs can be spread over the whole system, that we shall be able to overcome this problem.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 1623.]
There we have an entirely different principle from the provision of services through a charges scheme based upon the cost of the particular service. This different principle demands that there shall be a unified system so that the costs shall be spread. The Commission themselves are aware of this other principle: In their third Report they refer to what I will call this principle of internal subsidy. They said there:
The complicated pattern of loadings and costs changes from hour to hour, and from service to service by days of the week. The combinations of fluctuation thus produced cannot be reflected in corresponding variations in the fare per journey undertaken by each passenger. In consequence each passenger, at one time or another, is either in receipt of 'subsidy' in the sense that he is paying less than the full cost of the service … or is himself 'subsidising' some other passenger. This is an unavoidable feature of any public service, passenger or goods, operating to regular schedules at tariffs fixed and quoted in advance. There is in a sense a social 'contract' to all those who use the services to average out the cost over periods of time and flows of traffic.
This is the antinomy with which the Commission have been helplessly grap-

pling. They were trying to evolve a scheme of charges, and at the same time they knew that they were obliged to provide a service which involved an element of internal subsidy and only thereby could they confer the benefits of size upon the users.

Mr. Hargreaves: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the same dilemma confronted the privately organised railway companies before the war which had to accept all traffics offered to them—a dilemma which does not confront any form of transport which has not the same obligations to the public?

Mr. Powell: I am obliged for that intervention. I intended to refer to an experience of the previous privately owned railways which I think puts us on the track of a solution. I refer to their experience with the restaurant cars. Every year the Commission have incurred a loss on the running of refreshment cars. They refer in their last Report to the financial problem of the restaurant cars which, they say, remains with them.
But it is a matter of common knowledge that on the old main line railways the restaurant cars rarely, or never, paid. They were often run at a loss because the total result to the undertaking was a gain. They were able to provide that service at a loss, as what is, I believe, called technically a loss-leader, because the whole financial result upon the undertaking was advantageous.
On the contrary, the Transport Commission are obliged, by the very nature of their universal monopoly, to regard each of their undertakings separately and, therefore, to view the persistent loss by the refreshment cars as an insoluble financial problem. It is an insoluble financial problem because there is no business undertaking—no organic business undertaking—which can compare its results with those of other undertakings or with its own experience year by year.

Mr. Edward Davies: If the hon. Gentleman thinks about this he will see that there are other aspects of the railway service that have the same considerations. The collection and delivery services, the terminal services, have never paid for themselves. They have to be taken into account as far as the whole thing is concerned. They are still losing


money, but it is not for the reason which the hon. Gentleman gives.

Mr. Powell: Exactly, but these things can be taken into account and provided for if we have a competitive structure. If we have autonomous, financially independent, competitive structures, these structures are capable of fulfilling what is called the social contract. It is possible to judge whether the provision of a service, in itself uneconomic, will in the general field result in advantage or not. This combination of the two principles of a charges scheme based upon real costs and a charges scheme which equalises the costs is only possible in the framework of autonomous, and not monopolistic, financially going concerns. It is only on that basis that the underlying problem of charges can be solved at all.
The Socialists have always made the mistake of confusing integration—which I am now using in the sense of the most economic exploitation of all the various resources of transport—with monopoly, and of failing to see that competition is one of the ways, and the most effective way, by which integration in that sense can be achieved. I want to quote, because it puts the matter better than I can, one of the concluding sentences from Mr. Gilbert Walker's book "Road and Rail":
It may be worth repeating once more the obvious fact that competition and co-ordination are not mutually exclusive states. A coordinated transport service might be established by an industry which remains competitive just as readily as by a monopoly, whether privately or publicly owned.
Therein, I believe, has been the fundamental error of the party opposite. They thought they could bring about coordination, and what, in fact, they created was monopoly. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) sat down at the end of his Second Reading speech nearly six years ago, he used these words:
I was going to say, if hon. Members would listen to me: Give this Labour Government five years of power in this field of transport services, and the people of this country will see more progress than would be made in 500 years of Tory rule."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 1637–8.]
That boast is finally exploded by the Report of the Commission which we are considering, and the reason why it has remained an empty boast is that the party

opposite cannot see that competition and co-ordination are not exclusive, and where they seek co-ordination the results show that they only create monopoly.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has put forward some most extraordinary arguments concerning the basis of charges and other matters that he dealt with, but in view of the fact that the hon. Gentlemen who are to wind up the debate from the Front Benches will wish to rise very shortly I do not wish to deal with them.
I would only remind the hon. Gentleman that it is quite unjust of him to pin criticism on the British Transport Commission for not having produced a freight charges scheme, when it is stated in the Report that this scheme was promised to the former Minister at the end of last year, and that, in view of the change of Government and the statement on transport policy issued by the Government, that scheme has not been put forward. I therefore think that the hon. Gentleman was on rather weak ground there.
As for the figures which he questioned concerning the Road Haulage Executive staff, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give the answer there. The Minister of Transport is responsible for the Transport Commission, and if statements are made in this House that figures given in its Report are inaccurate or misleading it is for the Minister to reply to them.
This afternoon we had an extraordinary speech from the Minister of Transport. After bleating like a lamb and bestowing praise, first upon my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Transport, then upon Lord Hurcomb and finally upon the Transport Commission for their subsequent results, he then proceeded to roar like a lion to cover up his complete lack of argument and his ignorance of the transport industry. He then did the most extraordinary thing of all; he embarked upon a Second Reading speech of a Bill which Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled was not even before this House.
It is understandable that the Minister should behave in this way because in 1947 the then Opposition rejected the case for the public ownership of trans-


port. Immediately on assuming office, and without examining the evidence as to whether nationalisation had succeeded or not, and without seeing for themselves how the Transport Commission were operating, or consulting anyone within that Commission, the Government put forward proposals to disintegrate that organisation. They could surely have waited until the Report had been issued, or did they perhaps know what were its contents, as suggested by my right hon. Friend, and want to be sure that their statement on policy and their Bill were before the House before the public were aware of the very satisfactory results achieved by the Commission during 1951?
The Minister produced no evidence whatsoever for the change of policy which has been put before this House. He produced no evidence whatsoever to prove the statements which he made and which he threw about rather wildly concerning the Road Haulage Executive, statements which could be proved to be untrue. The true facts could have been ascertained by the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest of ease had he cared to consult the Commission or the Executive.
The main burden of the Minister's argument was that there was, in fact, no real integration within the Transport Commission, and the only alternative policy he suggested to integration was disintegration. He suggested that the Transport Commission should now, as it were, be atomised, but he produced no argument to show that benefits would accrue from such a process. Again, he showed complete ignorance of the working of the Act and also of its purpose.
I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that the Motion moved this afternoon by my right hon. Friend does not suggest that integration has been completed. It suggests that last year's achievements were a further step in that direction, and I think that should be kept in mind. It states:
That this House notes with approval the Fourth Annual Report of the British Transport Commission as marking a further stage in providing an efficient public transport system through the integration of road and rail traffic under common ownership.
It is only the first stage which has already taken place. That is common

ownership, and common ownership, in fact, was only finally achieved during 1951. It was only by the end of 1951 that the Road Haulage Executive had completed their acquisition of road haulage undertakings. Even so, although the process of achieving common ownership was proceeding throughout 1951, a considerable measure of integration has been achieved despite what the Minister said this evening. I would only remind the House of the statement made by Lord Hurcomb himself in his introductory letter to the Report.
The common ownership of road and rail and the removal of restrictions on the use of road haulage by the railways which has resulted, and the uneconomic and unequal competition which has ended with the Transport Act have, in effect, ended the horse and cart mentality which has been referred to in the House in the past and which was the basis on which the railways operated until fairly recently. Under common ownership of road haulage and British Railways it has been possible to extend feeder services to the economic limit, that is to go beyond the radius of a horse and cart service. Zonal schemes have been started which have enabled the collection and delivery of goods to road haulage centres from where they have been taken by motor trunk services to rail heads. This has eliminated a great deal of railway operations of a most expensive and uneconomic kind which involve a great deal of shunting and the like.
There has been inaugurated in East Anglia a scheme which is working on the basis of a common commercial service between road and rail. As pointed out in the statement on integration which the Transport Commission issued last year, the Commission are working towards a common commercial service which is an essential feature of a properly integrated transport system.
The objective of the Commission is a regional and de-centralised transport system as distinct from separate road, rail and inland waterway organisations. In other words, there has been greatly developed in the Commission, and substantially so during 1951, a transport mentality as opposed to a rail and road mentality, and this process of integration has made considerable progress. It would continue to progress at increasing speed


if the Government did not come along at this stage and step in and prevent it going further.
I cannot understand why the Minister claims in this House this afternoon that this process has not been taking place. In fact, he is stating that the Chairman of the Commission in his introductory letter is not being accurate and is not speaking the truth. Lord Hurcomb makes it clear that it is proceeding and that fact runs through the Report. To attack the Transport Commission and the Transport Act and to claim that they have failed in this respect is to refuse to see the truth.
The Minister, of course, refuses to face facts because he does not want to have to admit that nationalisation has succeeded. This denial of the facts is false propaganda. If the truth is available false propaganda is of no use whatsoever, and we shall see that the truth about the result of the Transport Commission's work in 1951 is made known to the public.
Changes of immense benefit have taken place in the transport industry and further benefits would accrue if at this stage the system was left to develop freely and was not interfered with in this unnecessary and unjustifiable way by Government policy. The Minister contradicted himself. First of all, he said that the Transport Commission had not succeeded in integration because they only owned 41,000 vehicles, whereas the C licences had increased fairly substantially and now totalled some 800,000 and therefore there was not a monopoly and integration had not taken place. Then, a little later in his speech, he suggested that the Road Haulage Executive constituted a monopoly, and proceeded to attack them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I referred to long-distance haulage.

Mr. Davies: C licences certainly involve long-distance haulage, and it was to the competition on the long distances that the Minister referred. He was denying that the large increase in C licences had taken place in local delivery.
I consider that the Minister misunderstands the purpose of the Transport Act, 1947. The principle of that Act was that it recognised that equal competition between different forms of transport was no longer possible, and therefore the Act

created intentionally a monopoly of long distance public haulage, for which compensation was paid. It cost the Transport Commission—in effect, the community—£80 million to acquire a monopoly of long-distance transport, of which £30 million represented goodwill for taking over the business as a going concern. That £30 million will be dissipated, as the Government admit, if this monopoly is broken up.
The Minister has not given us a single argument of what effect will accrue from the breaking up of the monopoly. There have been wild statements that the service of the private road hauliers will be better than that of the Road Haulage Executive, that the Road Haulage Executive are failing in their duty and fail to provide the services which were formerly provided. But no evidence or proof of that has been brought here this afternoon.
I think that the policy of the Government and the speeches of the Minister and other hon. Members opposite have exposed the fallacy which they hold with regard to competition. They still claim that efficiency and economy cannot be obtained without free competition; that is to say, that competition between different forms of transport would increase efficiency and make for economy, and that in effect it would lead to a freer interchange of goods. That is the illusion which the Government harbour.
But there cannot be free competition between unequal forms of transport. All forms of transport cannot have the same obligations and the same liabilities. There must be a common carrier, and unprofitable and unremunerative traffic will be thrust upon the common carrier, and other operators will be carrying the profitable traffic. It was to eliminate that situation and to prevent high prices having to be charged for certain services of the common carrier, which might be monopoly traffic, to pay for carrying competitive traffic cheap rates, that this monopoly was introduced.
As long as we have a situation in which we have unequal competition, then we shall have situations where we shall not be able to run our transport according to cost. If we cannot operate our transport on the basis of what it is costing, we shall not have an economic business and a fair form of transport.
If the Government proceed with the transport policy and the Transport Bill which they have put before this House they will find that they will fail in their purpose, because the community to whom this great national asset belongs—and the workers who are proud to operate it and who have done such a fine job in 1951—will reject this destructive policy, which is based only upon party prejudice. If the Government succeed in interfering with the successful development of the publicly-owned British transport system, they will not do so permanently, and the damage that will be done to the system by the Government will quickly be repaired by the next Government.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: There has been a considerable depth of feeling on this side of the House this afternoon. I can assure the Minister and the House generally that that depth of feeling is real and sincere. We have very strong views about the way in which the Government are handling the transport situation which has fallen to them. If at times our indignation is not as good tempered as it might be the Minister will understand that it is because we feel that the Government as a whole are handling the situation extremely badly.
I want to say a word about the attitude of the Minister himself. It seems to me that he has behaved in rather a surprising way this afternoon. Attacks have been made upon the British Transport Commission by his hon. Friends, and some criticisms have been made from this side of the House; but he sat there, as he sits at the moment, with folded arms, in an apparently disinterested way, and we must wait to see whether we are to have any reply to those criticisms and attacks.
I have noticed that the road traffic which usually operates along the second bench opposite was blocked for a considerable time—until my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) asked for a specific reply to the allegations made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell) and one of his hon. Friends the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), who spoke earlier.

Mr. Renton: I have not made a speech in this debate. I made an interjection.

Mr. Callaghan: I am very well aware of that. I have been following the debate very closely. The hon. Gentleman said that he made an interjection. I was not here at the time.

Mr. Renton: Mr. Renton rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I am not going to give way to the hon. Member again. I shall give way to others, as I always do. In the course of his interjection the hon. Member said that there was a very substantial turnover in the staff of the Transport Commission, and that was an indication of something being wrong with the state of affairs. I think that was what he said.
The Minister may interpret his attitude to the Transport Commission differently from the way in which his colleague the Minister of Fuel and Power interprets his attitude to the Coal Board; but I am bound to contrast the spirit in which the Minister of Fuel and Power approached his task when we had a debate on coal a little while ago with the spirit of the Minister of Transport today.
The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have at least the duty of ensuring that the Transport Commission are not misrepresented by their hon. Friends because of their political spleen. [Laughter.] As that statement is challenged I will give one example. The hon. Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins), who is in his place at the moment, made great play with the fact that the insurance premiums paid by the Road Haulage Executive had been substantially increased during the last few days. He deduced as the reason for that the low state of maintenance of the vehicles or the high accident rate. That is a slanderous thing to say.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is true and whether he has the facts; because if he has not—and in case he has not—I will now supply them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I will give the answer myself. I did what the hon. Member for Toxteth could have done; I rang up the Commission's Public Relations Officer and asked him what were the facts. The facts are these: that the insurance premiums of the Road Haulage Executive have been substantially increased during


the last few days, as the hon. Member said. I asked for the reason, and this is the reason I was given—and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on it: that the introduction of the Transport Bill and its proposal for breaking up and disposing of the Road Haulage Executive has meant that the insurance companies have said, "We cannot treat this business as having a longer life than 12 months and, therefore, we cannot adopt the normal insurance system."

Mr. Bevins: Mr. Bevins rose—

Mr. F. Harris: Mr. F. Harris rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot give way to either of the hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Bevins: Mr. Bevins rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): If the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) does not give way, the hon. Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) must resume his seat.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not going to waste time with the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) anyway. I was subjected to considerable discourtesy at one stage of the debate, which I do not propose to go into further. I am quite ready to give way to the hon. Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins), so that he may comment on what I have said.

Mr. Bevins: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In fact, I gave way to him during my speech. If he will cast his mind back to what I said, he will recall that I referred to a statement made in the last transport debate by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who said that public safety was better now because of the better conditions of British Road Services' vehicles. I think I am right in saying that I then made the comment that because of the bad claims experience of British Road Services, the premium had recently been doubled. I ask the hon. Member to accept that as a statement of fact.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know what point the hon. Member has served by repeating the allegation with which I have already dealt. I am assured that that is not the reason. I am assured by the Public Relations Officer of the Transport Commission that the reason was the introduction of the Bill to dispose of the

Road Haulage Executive. Because of that—and I come back to the Minister again—I have ventured to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is his duty to get answers to that sort of question. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be ready to give them to us when he replies.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very ready to answer that straight away. Immediately after hearing that, I made certain inquiries and, as I am advised, the reasons are three-fold. One is the rather adverse claims record in 1951, another is the fact that the Transport Commission drove an excellent bargain with the market originally and the market were anxious not to have such a bargain again, and the third is that undoubtedly, owing to the coming of the Bill, it is impossible to insure large lots for a long time ahead.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the Minister—and I leave it at that.
The purpose of this debate was partially to educate the Minister. Whether we have succeeded in doing so I do not know, but we hoped that it would make him read the Report of the Transport Commission. What happened was that a debate which was arranged to take place on the Report of the Transport Commission was turned by him into a defence of his Bill. I am not surprised, in view of the heavy attack he is subjected to in the "Daily Telegraph" today, in a middle page article, in which they had much harsher words to say about the Bill than I could ever hope to emulate.
I am not surprised that he has had to divert attention from the Commission's Report to try to defend himself against the attacks of his own friends. I am bound to follow him later in his remarks about the Bill, but for a moment I should like to say a word or two about the Report of the Commission which has been placed in front of him.
Quite shortly, as I understand, during the last year they have made a profit, in the conventional sense of that term, of £49 million, before charging interest of any sort. That seems to me to be a rather remarkable result considering the conditions under which they have been working. After charging interest and central charges, as they are called, the surplus which is left is reduced to £2.9 million.
So for the first time in their history during the last four years they have been


able to return a surplus. This has not been achieved merely by raising charges and costs and fares against the public. As the Report of the Commission shows quite clearly—and I had hoped that the Minister would have taken us through the Report in greater detail than he saw fit to do today—there have been rather substantial economies that have had an effect. It was left to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) to point out to the House that whereas the charges of British Railways had increased by 93 per cent. since the end of the war their costs had increased by 150 per cent. And yet they are able to return a surplus.
Now, the only explanation of that fact can be improved efficiency in their working. There can be no other explanation that I know of. If the Parliamentary Secretary has got another one, no doubt he will tell us. There was a similar ratio in the increased costs and fares of London Transport. The plain truth is that the fare increases would have been much higher had it not been for the increased efficiency and economy with which London Transport and British Railways operated during the first four years of the nationalised industry.

Mr. Powell: Read paragraph 53.

Mr. Callaghan: I wish to go on to say that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) that the surplus they are making is not yet big enough. I agree with him. I do not think their finances are yet on a sound enough basis. I should like to put this point to the House. The Transport Commission are financed by means of fixed interest capital, so that what we should normally refer to as a profit of £41 million is, in fact, a surplus of some £2.9 million once the fixed charges have been met. I believe, therefore, that it is the task of the Transport Commission—and the task of the Government to help—to build up their internal savings at a rapid rate to avoid recourse to the market at an unfavourable time.
After all, we cannot guarantee that it will be able to launch any new capital issues that it may have without the Prime Minister's crashing in and sending Stock Exchange values tumbling down—as he did last Wednesday. There is no reason

at all why the Commission should be subjected to these sorts of influences. They should have substantial internal reserves of capital on which it can call. Until they have, they are highly vulnerable.
They are in this difficulty—I think the Minister recognises it—that they have no equity capital to act as a cushion when times are bad. They have to meet their interest charges, and I believe, therefore—and I put this to the Minister—that it is his job to help the Commission to build up a substantial internal reserve so that they may not be in this extremely vulnerable position throughout the whole of their existence. I know that they are building up various reserves of one sort and another, but in my view they have not yet been able to do it fast enough.
That is why I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead in his attack upon the Government for their levity in the way in which they dealt with the fares schemes during the spring and early summer, by which they struck nearly £2 million off the revenues of the Commission without regard at all to those long-term considerations—and nonpolitical considerations—to which I am drawing attention at the present time.
Another factor in the Commission's Report to which I should like to draw attention is the clear need for greater capital resources. The Minister said—I agree with him, though this implies a friendly criticism of the Government of which I was a member, though I was not at the time at the Ministry of Transport—that the Commission had not got the allocation of materials and capital resources they would have liked. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South, as I know, fought a very continuous battle to get more capital resources available for the Commission. He partially succeeded, but he did not succeed as much as he would have liked, or as much as the Commission would have liked. From words the Minister himself uttered I draw the conclusion that he finds himself in much the same sort of trouble that we found ourselves in; in other words, we find that our economic difficulties are not solved by waving a magic wand and telling people. "You have to get rid of controls."
There are particular ways in which the Commission point out that they are suffering at the present time. I was hoping


that the Minister might have paid some detailed attention to the words on pages 112 to 115 instead of launching out into his Bill, and it therefore falls to us to point this out. It is clear that the Commission are falling behind-hand with their permanent way renewals, with the painting and repair of stations, the maintenance of bridges, in their signalling and telecommunications units, and also in the provision of locomotives, carriages and wagons.
I have not the time now to go into this in detail, and I would not attempt to mislead the House by saying that I think the situation is yet wholly serious. I think that the Commission are holding on, but I do not think that they are making any progress. If anything, I think they are not keeping abreast of the tide but are dropping slightly behind, and that is an extremely serious situation. I wish that the Government of which I was a member could have devoted more capital resources to the development of our transport system, and, speaking nonpolitically. I hope very much that the Minister will have better luck.
I certainly hope he will, because I think that this is a most important matter. It is even more important when the Government apparently propose to split road from rail, leaving the railways to fend for themselves, because if they are in no fit physical state to fend for themselves the consequences to the transport system of the country and to the railways are much more serious than if the two are running in common harness.
Perhaps I might be allowed to make just one reference to page 42 of the Report to conclude that section of what I was saying, by referring to Paragraph 87 and to the economies which the Commission say they can secure
if adequate capital and physical resources are forthcoming.
They say—and these, I think, are very important statements—that in their view
The improvement in freight train speeds which ought to result from a general introduction of the fully-braked wagon would produce savings of millions of pounds a year; the modernisation and re-siting of marshalling yards would substantially reduce costs;
and they go on to say, later:
Advance under such heads is at present held up, and has been held up since 1938 at least.
I believe that the time has come to give the Commission more of the available

capital resources that we have got in order to enable industry in this country to secure the benefit of a modern and efficient railway system, and I should like to hope that the Minister will be able to secure higher priority for the railways than they have had hitherto.
There are other tests of efficiency to which he made reference. Despite the difficulties that they have had, as they show on page 45—and here is an example of their increased efficiency—they have, nevertheless, managed to haul more tons more miles in an hour per engine in the service than they were able to previously. If I can convert the index which is given here into a statistic which I hope is right, I would put it in this way. Whereas four years ago they were able to haul 100 tons at a speed of 5.43 miles an hour—taking all the tons they hauled, all the miles they hauled them, and all the engine hours—last year they hauled the same amount 5.95 miles in an hour. Now, even a small decimal of that sort is fantastic when we consider the overall picture, and I am very gratified indeed, and I think the Minister might have paid them a better tribute than perhaps he did.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was very flattering.

Mr. Callaghan: Well, the right hon. Gentleman flattered them with one hand and hit them down with other.

Mr. Ede: He damned them with faint praise.

Mr. Callaghan: That was the phrase I was searching for, but I have not quite the facility of my right hon. Friend.
The Minister made another attack today on the staff employed by British Road Services. I should have thought he would have learned his lesson from what happened last time, when the Prime Minister said that there were 11,000 administrative and clerical staff employed at the headquarters. He said today that he could not understand why in a particular section—which I did not quite get—the staff should have increased as it has done in British Road Services. If he does not understand it, why has he not asked them? He has a telephone on his desk; he has a typewriter available and a typist there. Lord Hurcomb would have been glad, I am sure, to come to see


him. Why has he consistently and deliberately ignored British Road Services and the Road Haulage Executive since he became Minister of Transport? [An HON. MEMBER: "He is afraid of them."] He apparently shakes his head, but he has not paid a single visit to the Road Haulage Executive.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should have been there today but for this debate. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but every member of the Road Haulage Executive has been to my house and had a talk with me there. Every member has been asked by me to come, and, as far as I know, every member has been to my house.

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister has paid no visit to the Road Haulage Executive nor to any of its depots. He has seen none of the operative staff, although he may have seen at his house on social occasions, or some other occasions, some members of the Road Haulage Executive. I will talk to the right hon. Gentleman about that afterwards. Why has Lord Hurcomb not been to see the Road Haulage Executive? Why should we be left in the state in which the Minister comes to this House, after a considerable period in office, and say, "I cannot understand why the British Road Services have had to increase their staff."
I think that shows a lamentable failure in the discharge of his duties. He should either know what the real answer is, or he should not make such a statement. I do not think that he knows what resentment he causes. It is out of all proportion to the party point he scores, in the minds of those working for the Road Haulage Executive today. He listens to gossip and retails prejudices. It is high time that he saw for himself, and got on with the job, as a Minister should do.
I want to put another point to the Parliamentary Secretary. As his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West accuses the Transport Commission of deliberately misleading the public and the House by falsifying the figures contained in paragraph 111 of the Report, I wish to know from the Parliamentary Secretary—and I am sure that the whole House and the public would like to know—whether, in fact, the Commission have deliberately falsified these figures or not;

whether, in fact, they had tried to give a misleading impression.
Either the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is right, in which case the Commission are sadly to blame and falling well below the level I should expect of them from what I know of them and of the records of those who prepare these documents, or else he is wrong, in which case he should have the grace to withdraw; and, in any case, he might have found out what the facts were before he made these allegations.

Mr. Powell: I quoted them.

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the most significant thing about this debate is the way in which the Minister, so far as I understood him, has thrown overboard the idea of integrating the road and rail services. I confess that I am not clear about this. [Laughter.] Yes, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give me some enlightenment, because it is a difficult matter to explain. If some of the hon. Members who are now laughing had been here all day, they would have seen what we have seen. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have."] The House has filled up very considerably during the last 10 minutes or quarter of an hour.
The point I want to put to the Minister, and which, I think, is the whole essence of the problem, is this: as the Minister himself said, transport is a public service. Its job is to carry the goods for industry as cheaply, efficiently and economically as it possibly can. That was recognised in the case of the railways. They were told they had to become a public service, not a private enterprise. They were a public service in the sense that anybody could go to a station with a parcel or load and say that it should be sent to any part of the country that he nominated, and the railways would be bound to take it. They had to run regular services for virtually all traffics and accept everything that was offered to them and carry it to whatever destination the consignee might require.
That obligation was imposed upon the railways before there were such things as lorries, because the railways had a monopoly in the field. They carried out the obligation. It meant that they made a loss on certain services and had to cover it by making more than a due amount of profit on others. The essence of their


being a public service and common carriers was that they had placed upon them the running of the service at all times that any member of the public might care to ask them to run it. That was an onerous obligation. It meant giving all comers the same equal treatment.
From the start the road hauliers were placed in a much more favourable position. No such obligation was laid upon them. They had to secure a licence before they could operate, and they all ganged up to prevent anybody else getting into the racket. We all remember what went on and how they were operating in a semi-monopoly and preventing any newcomer getting into the industry in the 1930's. But although they had the protection of this semi-monopoly they never had an obligation as common carriers.
It was because of the inconsistencies of this arrangement, because the road hauliers were free to raise or lower their charges as they thought fit, free to run a service or not to run a service as they thought proper, and free to run to a timetable or how they thought best, that they were not a public service but an organisation for providing a livelihood for road hauliers. If the road hauliers could not make a profit they did not run a service. I am sorry to go over these basic facts but they are the essence of the problem which the Minister must face.
We tried to solve the problem by integrating road and rail services under common ownership. The Minister says that there is no foreseeable chance of these plans coming to fruition. Why is that? He did not tell us why; he produced no evidence why they are not coming to fruition. The Chairman of the Transport Commission thinks they are coming to fruition. On 9th July, Lord Hurcomb wrote to the Minister of Transport saying that the way had been prepared for many important steps in the process of integrating the different forms of transport from which large economies would eventually result. The Minister says, "No." What evidence has he? We know that he has not been to see the Transport Commission. What is his evidence for saying that the Chairman of the Transport Commission does not know what he is talking about when he says that integration was on the verge of coming into existence and that large-scale economies would eventually result?

Sir G. Hutchinson: Sir G. Hutchinson rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I regret that I cannot give way. I have only two minutes left. I ask the Minister to provide us with the evidence which he ought to have put before the House this afternoon when he spoke about the Bill.
The fixed pattern of charges which would have equated road and rail and would have enabled integration and competition to flow has been put into cold storage by the Minister. He has put the clock back about 20 years. There is no, excuse at all for a Bill of this sort—the Minister will create great damage by the alteration that he is making—unless he has something to replace what he is taking away. All he is doing is destroying the idea of integration.
He is proposing to sell back the road haulage units and we shall be back in precisely the position we were in in the 30's which led the Salter Commission—that name will not be unfamiliar to hon. Gentlemen opposite—to say that it believed that the best division of function would be obtained mainly through the deliberate effort of those engaged in road and rail transport to co-ordinate their services and give the public the full advantage of complementary services. That Commission also said:
Nationalisation of the railways alone, leaving other forms of transport in other hands, will not produce any real co-ordination of transport.
That is what the Minister is doing, and I say to him that he should take warning from what he is doing, because I fear it cannot last. The plain truth is that our Motion, which welcomes with approval the Report of the Transport Commission, exposes this Transport Bill as a piece of egregious and superfluous frivolity, which has no relationship at all to the problem of transport at the present time. Instead of pursuing the policy of integration, the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing the policy of rewarding his friends who contribute to Tory Party funds.

9.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): For the third time in a period over a few weeks I have the privilege of following the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) at the


end of a full day's debate on transport. Hon. Members who have been here all day will agree that this has been the most interesting of them, containing as it has a review of the past, an analysis of the present and more than one peep into the future. I think that I would describe it, however, a little differently.
I would say that we are at the close of what I would call Part I of a two-day debate on the virtues or vices of monopoly, and it will be interesting to us on this side of the House to see whether tomorrow the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite follow quite the same line as that to which we have just listened from my distinguished predecessor in the office which I now hold. [Interruption.] I hope I shall not get at cross purposes with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). We are not now discussing the fate of the friendly societies.
We ought to be clear at the end of a very interesting discussion, which has produced so many good speeches, on the issue of whether to move a commercial undertaking, be it under private enterprise or State control, out of the red into the black is right and proper or naughty and peccant, because over a number of years we have had a number of interesting theories on that particular subject. The question is whether it is right for the profit motive to penetrate into this sphere of the nationalised industries.
We have been discussing from 3.30 not the efficiency of the staffs of the British Transport Commission, but the practicality of the system which they have to operate. Naturally there has been a distinct cleavage of view on the two sides of the House. Hon. Members opposite, while they do not go the length of saying that all is well, say that all is a great deal better than before the passage of the 1947 Act. But the debate has hardly borne that out.
May I first of all take road haulage. On this side of the House, whether in or out of office we have never concealed our opinion that private enterprise can give a better service than any national organisation. I know—and here there will be common ground between us all—that the Executive and their staff have given of their best since they were established, anti nothing I say is in any way critical of their efforts. They have done their

best, but in the process have demonstrated that road haulage is particularly unsuitable for centralisation.

Mr. Sparks: What is the evidence?

Mr. Braithwaite: The hon. Member should listen. The object of these debates is to reply to speeches made by hon. Members opposite, and it is customary to listen to remarks made by hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Sparks: It is the evidence we want.

Mr. Braithwaite: It is the evidence that the hon. Member will receive, if he will be kind enough to listen.
Making due allowance for the taking over of a very large number of expropriated undertakings, it can hardly be regarded as satisfactory that in 1950 the Road Haulage Executive failed to meet its operating expenses by about £1 million. The results in 1951 were better in respect of £3¼ million, which was barely enough to cover their contribution to the central charges of the Commission, including the interest on British Transport Stock.
Even this somewhat meagre yield—and here I am being purely factual—is not being maintained, in view of the recent and current trends of traffic to which I shall refer in a moment or two.

Mr. Sparks: And the tax on petrol.

Mr. Braithwaite: In returning the road haulage interests to private ownership, it can hardly be said that the Government are depriving the British Transport Commission of a lucrative asset. I say that for the reason that on the traffic side prospects do not look brilliant for the Commission's road haulage undertaking. In 1951 the tonnage carried on British Railways was 1.2 per cent. in excess of 1950. and the corresponding figure for road haulage was 99 per cent. But, whereas during the first 20 weeks of this year the railway traffic has kept up, and indeed has increased by 1.4 per cent. over the corresponding period of 1951, road haulage traffic has shown a marked decline, the tonnage carried being 5 per cent. less than for the corresponding period of 1951, and 7 per cent. less than for the corresponding period of 1950.
These figures are, of course, affected by the types of traffic carried by road and rail respectively. But even so the traffic


trend for the Road Haulage Executive cannot be described as encouraging. Short distance traffic, for which the Executive are in competition with private enterprise, has tended, as the Report indicates, to decline throughout 1951. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and others have made clear throughout the whole of this discussion, the basic idea of the 1947 Act was the integration of the means of transport brought under the ownership, control and direction of the Commission, and principally this has meant the road and rail services.
Integration was primarily the function of the Commission, but as hon. Members will know, the actual operation of the railways and road haulage was that—

Mr. Lindgren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether it is customary for a speech to be read word for word?

Mr. Speaker: It is contrary to the usual practice of this House for speeches to be read, but it has become the practice in recent years for Ministers to be allowed greater latitude in this respect.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Further to your observation, Mr. Speaker. At this end of the Chamber we cannot tell whether the Parliamentary Secretary is reading his speech or only reading between the lines.

Mr. Braithwaite: I have sat here all day without interrupting any hon. Member who has spoken. I always feel that it is courteous to the House to take careful notes of what is said and the arguments that are put forward and to adhere to them fairly closely in making a reply when the time is somewhat limited. That is what I have done. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have come here armed with some document which I brought into the Chamber at 3.30, let me assure him that he is wrong. What I did was to take notes as we went along.

Mr. Poole: If that be so and the Minister's speech has arisen from the questions put to him during the debate, can he explain how it is that he has the figures for the first 13 weeks of this year which do not arise from the Report and have not been referred to in the debate?

Mr. Braithwaite: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, with the greatest respect, that it is the duty of a

Minister, however insignificant, to arm himself with the facts. I would say that from those figures it is obvious that but little progress has been made in the direction of integration. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), in a most interesting speech, early in the day, asked me—

Mr. I. O. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw a conclusion that there has been a total decrease in the volume of traffic carried by the Commission. Would he not agree that that is a reflection of the general trade recession in the months that have passed since his Government came into office?

Mr. Braithwaite: I do not think that that is a new point. The hon. Gentleman, even according to my notes, is three pages astern of where we were. I had come to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North who asked me about the charges scheme. He will find more about them on page 76, paragraph 194, of the Report which sets out the history of this matter. It tells how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) allowed postponement of the preparations for the scheme, another postponement and so on. It is all set forth in great detail.
The hon. Gentleman said something which I was sorry to hear from him, because he is always extremely fair in controversy. He made the allegation that C licence vehicles were causing accidents on the roads. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East laid down his views as to what ought to be done in the way of familiarising oneself with these problems. I should like to say to him and to the House that I have always felt that if one wants to test the fighting qualities of a regiment one does not go to the base depot: one goes to see them in action.
I have made it my duty since holding this office to make tours of the roads of this country, when the Recesses came along, for the purpose of looking at the problems of road safety, and the like. I want to say to the House that in my view there is no higher standard of driving in the world than that displayed by those who drive heavy vehicles in this country. I say that without dividing the drivers into whether they are in charge of a British Road Service vehicle or a C licence vehicle or whether they are


operating for private enterprise or not. I thought it a pity that the hon. Gentleman made that comment.

Mr. Edward Davies: The hon. Gentleman has rather misunderstood the point. The point I was making was that there had been the creation of so many licences unnecessarily—not specifically C licence exclusively—that the roads had been cluttered up with traffic which made them unsafe. I was not singling out C licence holders. The point was that the roads were over-congested with many heavy vehicles.

Mr. Braithwaite: I understand that the statistics so far apply to all types of traffic and not to any particular lorry drivers in this country. I am very glad that the point has been cleared up.
The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. W. Reid) said he thought we were not giving attention to the subject of the traffic problems of Glasgow, and, in order to demonstrate to the hon. Gentleman that that is not so, I would say to him that I have made inquiries since he spoke and would like to tell him how matters stand.
The Commission have submitted copies of the Inglis Report to the Glasgow Corporation and to all other authorities interested in transport and town planning in the Glasgow area. These have set up the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee, which is shortly to examine the Report. After they have received the comments of the authorities, the Commission propose to consider the report in conjunction with the Railway Executive and Scottish Omnibuses, Limited. Lord Hurcomb has undertaken to inform the Minister of the Commission's views, and I plead guilty to reading that word for word from manuscript. I understand further, through the usual channels, that there is likely to be a day for a debate on Scottish transport problems before we separate for the Recess.
Among the interesting speeches which have been delivered today was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins), and I think that one of the points he made may well bear repetition at this stage; namely, that the acquired road haulage companies were making profits of £8 million a year, which have virtually disappeared, the Commission's average

operating profits for the three years being just about £1 million.
An hon. Gentleman opposite asked about the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in reference to certain figures in the Commission's Report, and it so happens that I have taken steps to try to catch up with the matter. The published figures are in no sense the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister. They are the responsibility of the Commission, and this House being what it is, hon. Gentlemen are entitled to draw such conclusions as they think fit, and the arguments adduced are weighed by those who sit on both sides of the House. Certainly, my right hon. Friend has no responsibility whatever for the figures that are published.

Mr. Callaghan: This is surely a matter of fact? Has the Commission falsified the figures, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, or have they not?

Mr. Powell: What I said was not that the figures in the Report were themselves false, but they were were selected to give a misleading impression.

Mr. Braithwaite: I think I have heard that argument adduced on both sides of the House very many times during the years I have sat here.
The hon. Gentleman also claimed that the fact that London fares, and fares generally, had not risen more sharply was due—must be due, he said—to the increased economies and efficiencies of the Commission. Of course, efforts have been made in that direction, and I would, with respect, call attention to paragraph 53 of the Report—and I remind hon. Members opposite that this is the Report and not anyone speaking from this bench—in which it is stated:
… the most important factors explaining the difference between the level of costs and the level of fares are as follows:—

(a) the loadings on the services are much better;
(b) there has been an increase in travel;
(c), the renewal of the undertaking is not being provided for on the same basis as pre-war;
(d) the remuneration of capital has been greatly diminished."
That is the view of the Commission. I have no doubt whatever that they have done their best in the matter of econo-


mies and efficiency, but that is their own view as to the efforts which have been made. Far from the road haulage subsidising the railways, if the hon. Gentleman goes into the figures he will see that the Report says that the railways have, in fact, sustained to date the Road Haulage Executive.
I think this has been a debate of very great interest and usefulness. We had hoped it was going to be even more interesting because, during the news bulletin last Sunday, the alluring prospect was held out that the attack was going to be opened by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and we were prepared to receive his onslaught after listening to the news bulletin. But, instead, we had the right hon. Member for East Ham, South, who is always very agreeable when he speaks to us. I wonder whether the reason why the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South has not gone into action is the rather wounding remarks in the "Railway Review" that on the last occasion he kicked through his own goal, although we were advanced in the cricket season. We should have liked to hear him, and no doubt we shall when we come to the Bill.
The theme on this side of the House during this discussion has been that of over-centralisation, and I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House, whatever their political allegiance, very often feel that too much centralisation does have a somewhat frustrating effect. For instance, in the part of the country which I have the honour to represent the railway men regarded themselves with far greater pride when they worked for that part of the system which called itself G.W.R. than they do working for that part with the strange initials B.R.(W.), which, after all, are open to misinterpretation.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: What about the Somerset and Dorset Railway?

Mr. Braithwaite: I was coming to that.

Mr. J. Harrison: When the Minister made his speech, he gave us a promise that he would submit for the consideration of the House facts concerning this Amendment where it says:
The British Transport Commission and the Executive … were entrusted by the Trans-

port Act of 1947 with an impossible task, the attempt to discharge which has seriously impeded the interchange of goods and services throughout Great Britain.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary do something which the Minister failed to do, that is, give us the facts regarding that part of the Amendment?

Mr. Braithwaite: The hon. Gentleman knows it is always difficult to cover all the points raised in debate. [Laughter.] I am going to claim, despite the mocking laughter of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, after all, have not been here to listen, that the Opposition's main line of approach has already been met.
As it happens, for my final illustration of the evils of over-centralisation, I was coming to the very railway which the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) has mentioned. There is a small town on the shoes of Bridgwater Bay on the Bristol Channel, where I first saw the light. It is on the Somerset and Dorset Railway.
I am sure that hon. Members will be interested in this perfectly simple illustration of what sometimes happens when one has over-centralisation. I was extremely intrigued during the last few days to see displayed at Euston Station—it is not the station from which one travels, but let that pass—some alluring posters about Burnham, which now calls itself Burnham-on-Sea. The artist had let himself go. The beach was crowded with glamorous characters. The hills had been moved to another point of the compass to make a better picture. What impressed me was the letterpress which said "British Railways. Burnham-on-Sea, The Favourite Family Resort. Travel by Train."
But if any hon. Member were to visit my native town by that method of travelling by train he would find himself up against a major obstacle. The Transport Commission closed down the railway station on 27th October last. I can only think that the Commission were inspired by the dictum of Robert Louis Stevenson that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive. This debate has shown the result of this kind of over-centralisation.
As hon. Members well know, this Report is a tribute to the energy and


enthusiasm of the staffs of the Transport Commission, and I can only assure the House that to that energy and enthusiasm there presently will be added greater freedom and flexibility.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: Rarely in this House have we listened to a winding-up speech in a debate on an important subject such as transport from someone who, although holding office associated with transport—it is true he has held it only for a short while—appears to have taken no interest whatever in his Department and refuses to pay this House the compliment that is due to it by—

9.59 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Major CONANT and Mr. OAKSHOTT were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Tellers for the Noes Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 293.

Division No. 220.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hoy, J. H.


Adams, Richard
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Albu, A. H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Deer, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Dodds, N. N.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Donnelly, D. L.
Hynd, J. B. (Atterctiffe)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Awbery, S. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edelman, M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Baird, J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Janner, B.


Balfour, A.
Edwards, Rt Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Bence, C. R.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Benn, Wedgwood
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Benson, G.
Ewart, R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Beswick, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Field, W. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bing, G. H. C.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Blackburn, F.
Finch, H. J.
Keenan, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Kenyon, C.


Blyton, W. R.
Follick, M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Boardman, H.
Foot, M. M.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Forman, J. C.
Kinley, J.


Bowden, H. W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bowles, F. G.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Brockway, A. F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lewis, Arthur


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Gibson, C. W.
Lindgren, G. S.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gooch, E. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Logan, D. G.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
MacColl, J. E.


Burke, W. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
McGhee, H. G.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McInnes, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Grey, C. F.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Callaghan, L. J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, F.


Carmichael, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Champion, A. J.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Chapman, W. D.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield, E.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Clunie, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Manuel, A. C.


Cocks, F. S.
Hannan, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Collick, P. H.
Hardy, E. A.
Mayhew, C. P.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hargreaves, A.
Mellish, R. J.


Cove, W. G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Messer, F.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Hastings, S.
Mikardo, Ian


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Monslow, W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Moody, A. S.


Daines, P.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morley, R.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hobson, C. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, S.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Holman, P.
Mort, D. L.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Houghton, Douglas
Moyle, A.




Murray, J. D.
Royle, C.
Tomney, F.


Nally, W.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Turner-Samuels, M.


O'Brien, T.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Oldfield. W. H.
Shawcross, Rt. Won. Sir Hartley
Usborne, H. C.


Oliver, G. H.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Viant, S. P.


Orbach, M.
Short, E. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Oswald, T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)


Padley, W. E.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Weitzman, D.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Pannell, Charles
Slater, J.
West, D. G.


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Parker, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Paton, J.
Snow, J. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Peart, T. F.
Sorensen, R. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wigg, George


Poole, C. C.
Sparks, J. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Popplewell, E.
Steele, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Porter, G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R.R.
Williams, David (Neath)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Proctor, W. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Pryde, D. J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Summerskill, Rt Hon. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Rankin, John
Swingler, S. T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Reeves, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Richards, R.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wyatt, W. L.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Yates, V. F.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)



Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ross, William
Timmons, J.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Godber, J. B.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Channon, H.
Gough, C. F. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Gower, H. R.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Arbuthnot, John
Cole, Norman
Grimston, Hon, John (St. Albans)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harden, J. R. E.


Astor, Hon J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Cranborne, Viscount
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Banks, Col. C.
Crouch, R. F.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Barber, A. P. L.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Barlow, Sir John
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hay, John


Baxter, A. B.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Heald, Sir Lionel


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Davidson, Viscountess
Heath, Edward


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Deedes, W. F.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bevins, J. R. (Toxfeth)
Drayson, G. B.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Birch, Nigel
Drewe, G.
Hollis, M. C.


Bishop, F. P.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T (Richmond)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Black, C. W.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Holt, A. F.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Duthie, W. S.
Hope, Lord John


Bossom, A. C.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Finlay, Graeme
Horobin, I. M.


Braine, B. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Fleteher-Cooke, C.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fort, R.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Foster, John
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hurd, A. R.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'gh W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Gage, C. H.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gammans, L. D.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Butcher, H. W.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Jennings, R.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)







Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Speir, R. M.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Kaberry, D.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Keeling, Sir Edward
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stevens, G. P.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nutting, Anthony
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Lambton, Viscount
Odey, G. W.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Storey, S.


Leather, E. H. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Studholme, H. G.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Osborne, C.
Summers, G. S.


Lindsay, Martin
Partridge, E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Linstead, H. N.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Teeling, W.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Low, A. R. W.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pitman, I. J.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Tilney, John


McAdden, S. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


McCallum, Major D.
Raikes, H. V.
Turner, H. F. L.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Turton, R. H.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Redmayne, E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


McKibbin, A. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Vosper, D. F.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wade, D. W.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robson-Brown, W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


MacLeod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Roper, Sir Harold
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Watkinson, H. A.


Markham, Major S. F.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Marples. A. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wellwood, W.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Maude, Angus
Scott, R. Donald
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Maudling, R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Shepherd, William
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Mellor, Sir John
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Wills, G.


Molson, A. H. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wood, Hon. R.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)



Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Snadden, W. McN.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Soames, Capt. C.
Major Conant and Mr. Oakshott.


Nicholls, Harmar
Spearman, A. C. M.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 263.

Division No. 221.]
AYES
[10.13 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bishop, F. P.
Cole, Norman


Alport, C. J. M.
Black, C. W.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bossom, A. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cranborne, Viscount


Arbuthnot, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Braine, B. R.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crouch, R. F.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Cuthbert, W. N.


Baldwin, A. E.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Banks, Col. C.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Davidson, Viscountess


Barber, Anthony
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
De la Bère, Sir Rupert


Barlow, Sir John
Bullard, D. G.
Deedes, W. F.


Baxter, A. B.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Digby, S. Wingfiefd


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Burden, F. F. A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Butcher, H. W.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Drewe, G.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Cary, Sir Robert
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Channon, H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Duthie, W. S.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.




Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Leather, E. H. C.
Renton, D. L. M.


Finlay, Graeme
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Fisher, Nigel
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Robson-Brown, W.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lindsay, Martin
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fort, R.
Linstead, H. N.
Roper, Sir Harold


Foster, John
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Russell, R. S.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Gage, C. H.
Low, A. R. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Scott, R. Donald


Gammans, L. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Shepherd, William


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McAdden, S. J.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Godber, J. B.
McCallum, Major D.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gough, C. F. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Gower, H. R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Graham, Sir Fergus
McKibbin, A. J.
Snadden, W. McN.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Soames, Capt. C.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Spearman, A. C. M.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Speir, R. M.


Harden, J. R. E.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Harris, Reader (Hoston)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stevens, G. P.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland. Patrick (Lanark)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Markham, Major S. F.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marples, A. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Storey, S.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maude, Angus
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maudling, R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Heath, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Studholme, H. G.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Summers, G. S.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John
Sutcliffe, H.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Molson, A. H. E.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Teeling, W.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hollis, M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnharm)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Holt, A. F.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hope, Lord John
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Tilney, John


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Horobin, I. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Turner, H. E. L.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Odey, G. W.
Turton, R. H.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vosper, D. F.


Hurd, A. R.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Wade, D. W.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Partridge, E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Watkinson, H. A.


Jennings, R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)




Wellwood, W.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Joynson-Hicks. Hon. L. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Kaberry, D.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Profumo, J. D.
Wills, G.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Raikes, H. V.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lambton, Viscount
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Redmayne, M.



Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Remnant, Hon. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Major Conant and Mr. Oakshott




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bing, G. H. C.


Adams, Richard
Baird, J.
Blackburn, F.


Albu, A. H.
Balfour, A.
Blenkinsop, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Blyton, W. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Boardman, H.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bence, C. R.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Benn, Wedgwood
Bowden, H. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R.
Benson, G.
Bowles, F. G.


Awbery, S. S.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth







Brockway, A. F.
Houghton, Douglas
Pryde, D. J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hoy, J. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rankin, John


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reeves, J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rhodes, H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Richards, R.


Callaghan, L. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Chapman, W. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, William


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Royle, C.


Clunie, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Cocks, F. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Collick, P. H.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, E. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Daines, P.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Kinley, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur
Sparks, J. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lindgren, G. S.
Steele, T.


Deer, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
Logan, D. G.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Dodds, N. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Donnelly, D. L.
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McInnes, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McLeavy, F.
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Ewart, R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Field, W. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fienburgh, W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thurtle, Ernest


Finch, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Messer, F.
Tomney, F.


Follick, M.
Mikardo, Ian
Turner-Samuels, M.


Foot, M. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomson. George (Dundee, E.)




Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, W.
Usborne, H. C.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Viant, S. P.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Watkins, T. E.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morley, R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Weitzman, D.


Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Murray, J. D.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Nally, W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
O'Brien, T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Grey, C. F.
Oldfield, W. H
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Wigg, George


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Orbach, M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oswald, T.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hannan, W.
Pannell, Charles
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hardy, E. A.
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hargreaves, A.
Parker, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paton, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hastings, S.
Peart, T. F.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Poole, C. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Popplewell, E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Harbison, Miss M.
Porter, G.
Yates, V. F.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hobson, C. R.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)



Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, while recognising the efforts of the British Transport Commission and the Executives, believes that they were entrusted by the Transport Act of 1947 with an impossible task, the attempt to discharge which has seriously impeded the interchange of goods and services throughout Great Britain.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL LIST BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PAYMENT OF HEREDITARY REVENUES TO THE EXCHEQUER.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before we pass Clause 1, I think that we should get some further explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that we should get some definition of what he actually means by the hereditary revenues. I should like to know why, in this Bill, some of the hereditary revenues do not pass to the Consolidated Fund but remain in the hands of the Crown.
We are very anxious to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that he may get as much revenue as possible for balancing his bills. If he turns to the Report of the Committee which was set up to inquire into this matter, he will find, on page 5, these words:
the net revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, which have averaged since the end of the war about £90,000, accrue to the Sovereign by inheritance.
I should like to know why in this Bill the Chancellor has not taken powers to take the £90,000 from the Duchy of Lancaster in the same way as he takes the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall. Surely exactly the same arguments which are adduced in order to secure for the Consolidated Fund an easement of the very great burdens of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall apply equally in the case of the Duchy of Lancaster. I suggest that on the Report stage the Chancellor, now that his attention has been drawn to the matter that £90,000 should be coming in to ease the burden, should redraft this Clause.
I suggest there is another reason why at this stage the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster should come to the nation, because if it is a principle that no member of the Royal Family shall take part in business, we also hold that it is undignified on the part of any member of the Royal Family to receive money from rent. We argue that the Crown should be taken away entirely from the principle of hereditary rent, that the Monarch should be above taking such a mean thing as rent, and that we should use this opportunity in the new age that is coming along for the Monarch to be entirely isolated from the hereditary principle of taking rent.
I suggest, therefore, that here is a magnificent opportunity for the Chancellor to make the Crown above the idea of a landed aristocracy entirely, and to make the Crown really democratic. Now that the Chancellor's attention has been drawn to the fact that there is this £90,000 waiting to be gathered up, I suggest that now we are on the scaffold and before the trap door opens we should lift this £90,000.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): This question of hereditary revenues has already been mentioned in some of our debates, and there has been an idea that there is a sort of bargain between the Crown and the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Parliament. In fact that is not the case. If we look at the hereditary revenues in history, we find that they were in fact the monies on which the ordinary administration of the country was run. They were not necessarily the private apanage of the Royal Family which would mean the money which the Royal Family expended on their private account.
These revenues were of a variety of character. Some even became merged in the Customs and Excise revenues, called the temporary revenues. There are the Crown lands, the small branches of the hereditary revenues, and the hereditary access to Post Office revenues. All these have, at varying dates in the history of the Royal Family, been transferred, and, as I have said, although there was no bargain, they are not now really of any account in dealing with our problem today. The small branches of the hereditary revenues, for example, were kept apart from the hereditary revenues of George III and George IV and were


surrendered by William IV and Queen Victoria and all subsequent Sovereigns.
10.30 p.m.
I do not think, therefore, that there is very much mystery about these matters. These small revenues consist of the proceeds of intestate estates, sundry fines, small surpluses, etc., derived from the Channel Islands, and other matters. The fact that they are now merged in the general account does not make it necessary for me, according to the words of the hon. Member, to revise this Bill on Report stage in the sense that he wants.
He raised a second point about the Duchy of Lancaster. The revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster amounted, in the year 1950–51, to about £100,000. When this matter was discussed in 1936–37 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, drew attention to the fact, in answering the then Leader of the Opposition, who is also the present Leader of the Opposition, that the monies from the Duchy of Lancaster were a historical survival originally the property of the Crown and credited to the Crown ever since.
There are fluctuations in these properties, so one cannot give an absolute certain sum for an indefinite future, but I think that it is in accordance with tradition and useful to the needs of the Royal Family and indeed useful to Parliament in assessing the general sum which the Royal Family needs—that this sum accruing from the Duchy of Lancaster should, according to historical tradition dating from the time of Henry IV, be accredited to the Royal Family. I have attempted to give the hon. Member a short explanation of these matters. I am afraid that the Government are unwilling to amend the Clause on Report stage in the sense for which he asked.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR THE QUEEN'S CIVIL LIST.)

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I wonder whether the Chancellor will clear up the question of Income Tax liability on the Civil List. The right hon. Gentle-

man said on 9th July that he would, if asked, be prepared to throw additional light on the Income Tax and other taxation of the Civil List and other payments to members of the Royal Family. Since this may be the last occasion on which we may be discussing the Civil List for many years to come—which I am sure is the profound hope of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—it would be useful if the Chancellor could clear up some points for the purpose of the record. In Clause 2 (1) there is a provision to pay to the Queen's Civil List the yearly sum of £475,000.
The question I ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether any Income Tax and other taxation falls upon the Civil List. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn. West (Mr. Assheton) said:
Income Tax is not payable by the Crown itself …
The Chancellor said:
The Sovereign naturally, except when her or his private landed estates are governed by the Act of 1862, is free from tax …[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1342–1430.]
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether the Civil List is in fact free from tax and what statutory authority exists for it if exemption is granted.
I have conducted some researches into this matter. The only light I have seen thrown upon it was an article in the "Financial Times" of 11th June, 1952. entitled "The Civil List." It said:
At present no income tax is payable on the Civil List. This has a curious origin. In 1907, the Treasury tried to make King Edward VII pay the cost of visits of foreign royalties. The King refused. But in 1911 George V agreed to do so in return for an agreement that the Civil List should be tax-free. This was a vital concession.
I have looked at the Civil List Act of 1910 and have failed to find any reference to this agreement. I have studied closely all the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1952, and have failed to find any reference there to this arrangement. The circumstances in which the Civil List becomes tax free, as the right hon. Gentleman says it is, are a little curious. When the Chancellor referred in his remarks to the Act of 1862, he said that except when her or his private landed estates are governed by the Act of 1862, the Civil List is free of tax.
I find that the Act of 1862 deals only with the landed and other estates of the Crown owned in his or her private capacity, but I also find in Section 9 of that Act another curious thing. Apparently, taxation levied on the private estates of the Crown, which is provided for in Section 8 of the Crown Private Estates Act, 1862, has to be paid under Section 9 of the same Act out of the Privy Purse.
Does that mean that out of the Privy Purse which is provided for in the Civil List, taxes are paid on the private estates of the Crown, because under Section 9 of the 1862 Act it rather seems as if that were so. It says:
… all taxes, rates, duties, assessments, impositions, rents and other annual payments, fines, and other outgoings which shall from time to time be charged and chargeable upon … such private estates, shall be paid and discharged out of the Privy Purse of Her Majesty. …
The obligation is placed upon those responsible for the administration of the Privy Purse to pay these taxes out of any monies in his or their hands applicable for the use of Her Majesty or her heirs or successors.
There are two points which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer. He is very fully equipped with the answers to all these mysteries and doubts about the matter, and his reference only a few moments ago to some ancient laws gives me confidence that he will be able to supply the answers. The two points are these. Is the Civil List tax free, and, if so, what is the statutory authority for that? Does the Civil List bear the taxation levied upon the private estates of the Crown.
I have other questions to ask later, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will acknowledge that I am discharging a public duty in asking for explanations on matters upon which the public are singularly ill-informed and upon which I am sure it is fit and proper that the fullest possible information should be given. I shall make no apology in a moment or two in seeking to catch your eye, Sir Charles, in order to ask a few more questions about the Income Tax law concerning other members of the Royal Family, but at the moment I confine myself to Clause 2 which deals with the Civil List.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I want to deal with the money which is to go to the Duke of Cornwall. I believe that if a plebiscite were taken in this country on whether or not the Duke should receive this amount, there would be an overwhelming majority against it. I do not believe that such a plebiscite would reveal any hatred or animosity, but a proper sense of values.
When we think that £10,000 a year is being provided for a child not yet four years old, and that that sum will become £30,000 a year when he reaches the age of 18, it is beyond all common sense and reason. It would not have the backing of the vast majority of the people of this country. What could a boy of that tender age want which will cost anything like that amount of money? Someone has suggested teaching staffs, but large numbers of teachers employed at National Union of Teachers' rates would not absorb that amount. I cannot understand what kind of education the young Prince is going to receive, or what kind of life he is going to live up to the age of 18, that will require that amount of money.
Her Majesty's Government ought to give some recognition to what the ordinary people are thinking about this particular matter. There can be no doubt that a large volume of opinion considers that this is carrying the thing to extremes, and I should like the Chancellor to give some idea of the expenditure which would be incurred on behalf of this young child while he is being brought up. If it can be justified with a reasonable explanation, I think it would be accepted by the people, most of whom do not accept that there is such an explanation because they do not believe it is possible to spend this money for the next 13 years. I wonder whether the Chancellor could give some explanation which would remove our doubts and fears. We are entitled to it. I do not think it is asking too much, in view of the amount of money we are being asked to vote tonight, to be given more details and information.

Sir Herbert Williams: I think there is some misapprehension about this. I was a member of the Select Committee, and if this sub-paragraph was not in the Bill the Duke of Cornwall would get £90,000 a year. But Parliament is not voting anything to him.


Unless the law of inheritance is amended he is entitled to the whole of the revenue, and we are discussing what shall be done with that revenue. By this Act, and with the consent of his trustee, we are taking away from him eight-ninths of that which he would get if the subsection were not in the Bill.
I wish the hon. Gentleman the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) had taken the trouble to read the Report of the Select Committee.

Mr. Fernyhough: I did.

Sir H. Williams: If he did, he did not remember much of it, because he will have seen that we are not spending the £10,000 but building up a capital sum, as happened in the case of many of his predecessors, which can be used when he reaches his majority for the purchase of a house and equipment to set up his own establishment. If the hon. Gentleman will read the Report of the Select Committee he will see that it refers to a moderate capital sum, though whether it is moderate is open to argument. That is the purpose. The money is not likely to be used for his maintenance during the intervening period, but for the purposes set out in the Report, which it is obvious a great many hon. Gentlemen have not taken the trouble to read.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like, first of all, to support the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that we should have more information on whether Income Tax and Supertax are payable on the money that goes to the Civil List. I should also like to know why the Royal Family should not pay Income Tax just as much as anybody else. Hon. Members may think that an irreverent and indecent question, but I think that when the finances of the country are so serious as they are, a Monarch should set a magnificent example of self-sacrifice to the country and should agree to pay his or her share of Income Tax and Supertax in the same way as any other member of the community.
Surely this is a democratic age, and it is one of the privileges of every citizen in this country that he should pay towards the revenue of the country.
Millions of people will wonder: "If I am called upon to fill up my Income Tax form, why should not the Monarch have the same delightful and exhilarating experience?"
When we hear so much about the need to garner all the money that we can, I do not understand why the Royal Family should not also help. I am sure that they would be prepared to do so handsomely, generously and magnificently, and would give a lead in helping to secure the solvency of this nation. I hope the Chancellor will say, "Now that this point has been brought to my attention I am prepared to agree to this in the interest of the nation."
I fail to understand why there was some disapproval of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. Everybody knows that he has been perfectly consistent in this matter. Right throughout the Finance Bill, over and over again, with his long experience of the Inland Revenue, he was meticulously careful that every loophole for tax evasion should be closed. He is only pursuing the same policy and saying that there should be no tax evasion by anybody in this country, and in this matter the Head of the State should pay tax just the same as anybody else.
The case against this Clause is beyond doubt. I would point out to the Chancellor that this is something in the nature of a wage claim. This week we have been discussing wage claims, and only yesterday the Minister of Labour said from the Dispatch Box, "It is my duty, in the precarious state of the national finance, to say that these wage claims of these shop assistants should be referred back." If that is so, I think the Minister of Labour should have been in his place today and should have said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Look here, how am I going to be able to tell these shop assistants that they must be content with—"

The Chairman: I think that is going beyond Clause 2.

Mr. Hughes: I agree, Sir Charles, but I am quite sure that the million shop assistants will not. However, in spite of getting very little support either from the former Chancellor or the present Chancellor, I want to persist in this demand for economy at the present time. We are


on the scaffold. The trap door is open, and we cannot afford to have any luxuries.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to say: "Yes, we must vote everything that has been given in the past, according to precedent and tradition," we submit, as ordinary individual Members of this House, keen about protecting the financial resources of the nation and to secure the most meticulous economy and to save us from the spiral of inflation, that here is a splendid opportunity for the Chancellor to show that he is interested in safeguarding every penny, even when it affects the very highest traditions of the State.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) and myself were criticised because we argued that the £475,000 should be reduced to £250,000, and we still hold to that opinion. We do not believe that we are ungenerous people in saying that £250,000 a year—

The Chairman: There is an Amendment on the Order Paper to that effect which I did not call, so the hon. Member cannot discuss it now.

Mr. John Rodgers: Is it in order for an hon. Member of this House to indulge in tedious repetition? The whole of this speech was made in the debate on 9th July.

The Chairman: I am quite able to deal with tedious repetition.

Mr. Hughes: And if the hon. Member does not like it he can write to his bishop about it. I am quite sure that when the bishop reads the report of my arguments in this speech he will agree that they were not nearly so tedious as the correspondence that was sent to him on the previous occasion. I pass from the fact that some of these arguments were adduced on the Committee stage. I leave out the question whether it should be £250,000 or £475,000. I merely address my remarks to the argument that £475,000 is too much and that £250,000 would be a more reasonable ceiling. I have finished.

The Chairman: I have already told the hon. Member that that is a point that cannot be discussed. I have not selected the Amendment. If he persists in dis-

cussing this he will have to resume his seat.

Mr. Hughes: I would not persist in any way in attempting to contravene your decision, Sir Charles. My argument is that at the present time, in the present state of the nation's finances, there is a strong public opinion in this country that this amount is excessive and that in view of that and in view of the fact that none of our Amendments have been called, not even the Prime Minister's Amendment, we are justified in voting against what we consider an excessive sum.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) raised the first point on this Clause. He asked two specific questions: Is the Civil List tax free, and is the taxation on the private estates of the Crown paid from the Privy Purse? The answer is as follows. I gave the initial part in the debate of 9th July in column 1430, and I would expand it a certain extent, but not very much, as I understand he is going to speak later, when I will answer about the tax liability of other members of the Royal Family in order that he will not feel disappointed.
The position of the Sovereign is as follows. The Sovereign is not liable to tax unless expressly made liable by Statute. In the case of a male Sovereign the immunity extends to his wife's income, but it does not extend to the Consort of the present Queen. Therefore, when he comes to discuss other members of the Royal Family, I will discuss the position of the Duke of Edinburgh if he so desires. I think that he is quite right in saying that we must do all we possibly can to make all information available to the Committee.
The hon. Member then referred to the Crown Private Estates Act, 1862, under which Income Tax and Surtax is payable on the annual value of the private estates. Therefore, the answer on the question about the private estates is that tax is paid from the Privy Purse, and not the Civil List. No tax is payable by the Sovereign on the Civil List, but the salaries and pensions from the Civil List are taxed in the hands of the recipients. That, I think, is the main answer to his question. If I may, I will reserve comment on matters relating to other members of the Royal Family until he speaks later on.

Mr. Houghton: Could the Chancellor clear up this point for the Committee? When he says the taxation on the private estates of the Sovereign are paid from the Privy Purse, does that mean that the Privy Purse is Class 1? Is it not out of the £110,000? Is the Privy Purse part of the Civil List, or is there another, very privy, Privy Purse?

Mr. Butler: Technically, the hon. Gentleman is right. When I used the expression "Civil List," it includes the Classes attached to the Bill, and to the Report of the Select Committee. The tax is paid from private sources of the Royal Family, and not from the Civil List itself; but, as I have said, I will come to the other members of the Royal Family when he puts his points.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) referred to decisions made about the Duchy of Cornwall, and said that if a poll was taken the result would be that it was thought unfair that the Duke of Cornwall should have so much for his minority. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has given him the answer; because, if he refers back to history, he will see that never, during the minority of a Duke, and never in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall, has so stiff a bargain been made in favour of the Exchequer. No less than £1,380,000 is to accrue to the Exchequer during the minority of the Duke. That is a direct advantage to the Exchequer, and as the Select Committee made clear, it more or less balances, to within a few thousands, the Contingency Margin set up under the Civil List Report.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Could the Chancellor tell the Committee when was the last occasion that the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall went to a minor?

Mr. Butler: I would be glad to give particulars of the arrangements come to in 1936–37, which were in favour of a hypothetical minor Duke.

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, but when was the last actual case of a minor?

Mr. Butler: I have not particulars of that actual case, but I can obtain them before this debate concludes.

Mr. Gaitskell: It was a very long time ago.

Mr. Butler: Yes, a very long time. In the case of a hypothetical minor Duke, the 1936 provision would have granted him £504,000 during a minority. This arrangement provides the Duke of Cornwall with £240,000 only during a minority. In view of the history of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, I think that this is a very attractive arrangement for the Exchequer. It is a much more favourable arrangement than the Exchequer has ever had before, so far as I am aware.
11.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Jarrow then asked on what sort of thing would the Duke, his trustees or parents, spend this money during his minority. First, I take the view—as I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends do; and probably several hon. Members opposite—that it is right that a portion of the revenues of the Duchy, which are by historical tradition the property of the Duke of Cornwall, should pass to the Duke himself, and when the proportion is so small as this I think it forms an extremely fair arrangement from the point of view of the Exchequer.
On what would this money be spent? I think it is reasonable for the Heir to the Throne that a portion of the revenues from his own property should accrue to him, in view of the fact that in the future there will be many expenses in which he will be involved, and it is reasonable that this sum should accrue to him considering that no less than £1,380,000 is to accrue to the Exchequer. At the age of 18 he is to get £30,000 a year, and that he will spend on the Household, because at the age of 18 it is usual for members of the Royal Family to begin their duties, and although it is not a majority by age it is the age at which duties devolve upon the Heir to the Throne. I do not think he will find it difficult to spend that sum in view of the public business in which he will be involved.
So we are left with the question of how he will spend the money up to the age of 18. There will be his education and various other expenses connected with his youth, and expenses incurred by his guardians. There will be expenses during his minority which will not be great at his present young age, but which will


grow as his education becomes more and more important and involved. Those are the expenses for which this sum has been laid aside, and I hope that what I have said will provide a general answer to the points made by the hon. Member.
That leaves the points raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and in answer to him I would say that we did debate his point of view before. I do not think it would have been possible to have maintained the Monarchy in the tradition that we—and I am sure the great majority of the Committee—think is desirable on a sum less than has been laid down in the Report of the Select Committee. Great trouble was taken by that Committee, and I am afraid that at this stage it would not only be unwise but ungenerous not to pursue the matter through and to allot the sum decreed by the Select Committee and approved by the House and Committee in Resolutions for the purposes of the Royal Family.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for a sum accruing from the income of £9,000 a year up to the age of 18 and £30,000 a year for the last three years of his minority in order, for one thing, that a sum should be available, presumably as a capital sum, when the Heir to the Throne attains his majority. Surely it could be made clear—because I think it is the position—that when the Heir to the Throne does attain his majority he will have separate provision made for him as the Heir to the Throne? Is that so, or does that income cease when he attains his majority?

Mr. Butler: On attaining his majority the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall go to the Heir to the Throne.

Mr. Thomas: I take it, then, that the total of £90,000 a year will go to the Heir to the Throne when he becomes the Prince of Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If not, when he becomes 21 years of age? That means that he receives at the age of 21 the total revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, amounting to £90,000 a year. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer try to argue that in those circumstances, when he attains his majority and is guaranteed an annual income of £90,000, there is need for this

special provision to enable a capital sum to accrue?

Mr. James Carmichael: This Parliament is regarded as probably the most democratic in the world. I have been more than amazed at the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown out figures tonight to prevent impoverishment of the poor Duke of Cornwall. We are talking of these figures some 24 hours after the Ministry of Labour told us of the serious financial position of the country, and the strongest argument submitted this evening has been that of tradition. Surely, if there is to be expansion, or improvement, of democratic government there is bound to be some change in the general social outlook of the people at the top of the social scale.
We are preparing to give a boy of three years old anything from £10,000 to £12,000 a year. The whole reason for this Bill is to find revenue for the Royal Family. I say that the responsibility of the special Committee was to examine all the financial resources associated with the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, and to examine the Consolidated Fund.
I am satisfied that not a Member of this Committee could in detail examine the revenues and clearly explain how this money is allocated, because we have discovered tonight from the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who is supposed to be an authority on the rules and procedure of the House, that this Bill was framed not so much to give £10,000 a year to the Duke of Cornwall, but to take a whole lot of money away from him. How delightful to put it that way. The House is the only body which can frame Bills and introduce Acts to the statute book.

Sir H. Williams: If subsection (2) of this Clause were left out the whole of the revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall would go to the boy.

Mr. Carmichael: I am not responsible for framing this Bill, but the Civil List Committee, of which the hon. Member was an eminent member. Therefore, I say that it was the duty of the Committee to frame a Bill which did not contain a Clause which would give nine-tenths of the revenue to the Exchequer for a


period, and one-tenth to the Duke of Cornwall. It was the duty of this Committee to frame a Bill to ensure, first, that the Members of the Royal Family had a reasonable income; but not to permit them to get an income from the Consolidated Fund and then leave us guessing as to where the rest of the money was going. The money comes out of the Duchy of Cornwall; nine-tenths of it goes into the Consolidated Fund and one-tenth goes to the Duke of Cornwall.
I am in good company here, because an Amendment was put down by my right hon. Friends seeking the deletion of paragraph (a), and if I am any judge they did that because they felt it was unnecessary at this time to make that grant to the Duke of Cornwall. It is not for me to challenge the Ruling of the Chair or the procedure to be followed, but it is amazing to me that although we are in Committee we are not allowed to discuss an Amendment on the Order Paper.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman should not say that.

Mr. Carmichael: If I have said anything out of order, I regret it, but I think everybody is bound to admit that it is a strange thing that we should be in Committee and yet not able to discuss Amendments. That is the only point I want to make on that.
What I am disturbed about is that this youngster of three years is getting £10,000 at least of income without anything said about where it comes from. The Chancellor says that the Royal Family made a hard bargain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It could not be a bargain without the other side being associated with it; therefore it was a hard bargain. The Chancellor apparently feels that he has achieved something. When my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor asked when a minor of the Royal Family was formerly granted any sum from the Duchy of Cornwall, this Chancellor cannot tell us. He says that at some other stage, perhaps at the Report stage, he will be able to give us some information. The fact of the matter is that it is quite clear that we have no knowledge about when money was taken from this Fund before for a minor of the Royal Family.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: I suggest that in the cases of Edward VIII, Edward VII and George IV there was a minority of the Duchy of Cornwall.

Mr. Carmichael: Well, I do not want to touch on the delicate subject of Edward VIII tonight. Edward VII is going back a fairly long while; it goes back to a period before many Members in this Committee had arrived on this planet—and I do not mean the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). Therefore, I say sincerely that the general view of the country will be that there is something wrong with the framing of statutes which make it possible for the child of a person who is already getting £475,000 per annum—the father is apparently insignificant in this business, because he only gets £30,000—to get anything in the region of £10,000 a year. If the only justification given for that is historical tradition, then I say that is to fail to understand the mood of the people of the time.
11.15 p.m.
We are moving on to a higher and broader form of Government, and, until some stock is taken of these incomes, I tell the Government that they are failing to recognise the people's mood. My last word is about the "Sunday Pictorial," one of our great publications. [Interruption.] There is nothing wrong in that surely? When they first raised the issue the "Sunday Pictorial" criticised those who challenged the Government, and the second week they demanded a Gallup poll, which clearly stated that those who were critical of the Government's attitude on this Bill were right.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the Committee that, out of a circulation of approximately four million, only 2,500 replied in the affirmative in this so-called Gallup poll?

Mr. Carmichael: I say in this case the majority of the people supported the line criticising the Government. It was not their desire to operate some miserable means test on members of the Royal. Family; it was a taking of stock of the people's mood in the present situation. I think they were perfectly right in the attitude they adopted.

Mr. Richard Stokes: I am not going to follow my hon. Friend into the views of the "Sunday Pictorial," but I was not terribly impressed by the result. I want to make quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows what our position is. It was made perfectly clear in the Select Committee, in our Resolution at another stage of the Bill, and again today in the Amendment on the Order Paper, which you, Sir Charles, decided not to call. I am not complaining about your decision.
I, for one, rather like the idea that the financial responsibilities for the child should be with the mother, until he grows up. There is a good deal to be said for that, from the purely personal point of view. But the majority are against us, and obviously we are not going to get any amendment on this point at the Report stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will appreciate that the Clause is not satisfactory to us; on the other hand, we do not object to the great majority of the Clauses, as some of my hon. Friends do. That being so, we do not propose to divide the House, but if there is a Division I suggest to my hon. Friends that they should abstain from voting.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(PROVISION FOR HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Houghton: May I now continue my questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is quite accidental that I find myself in the company of my hon. Friends the Members for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) on this matter, because I do not share their desire for a threadbare Monarchy. But I do want to get to the bottom of this question of Income Tax law on allowances paid to other members of the Royal Family.
Clause 3 says there shall be paid to the Duke of Edinburgh, during his life, the yearly sum of £40,000. In the Report of the Select Committee on the Civil List that yearly sum is described as an annuity. I make no point of that; it may be that for Income Tax purposes there is no difference between a yearly sum and an annuity. But I would refer to what both the Chancellor of the Ex-

chequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) have said.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn, West said:
Income Tax is not payable by the Crown itself, but it is not generally known that Income Tax is payable by other members of the Royal Family, although the Inland Revenue make allowances for expenses, just as they make allowances for other people's expenses.
The Chancellor expressed himself in a slightly different way, when he said:
… other members of the Royal Family work under a system of allowances for expenses which is defined under the Income Tax law as recently consolidated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 1342–1430.]
I assume that the Consort of Her Majesty the Queen is not engaged in a trade or profession but that he holds an office and that he holds an office of profit. Were he not to do so I cannot see that he would be liable to Income Tax at all. But we are assured that he and other members of the Royal Family are liable to tax on their allowances.
In the article which I quoted from the "Financial Times" of 11th June, reference is made to Her Majesty Queen Mary who receives £70,000 a year which, the "Financial Times" said, was subject to Income Tax and Surtax, except that the Treasury
can and does relieve from tax the appropriate expenses element.
I assume, therefore, that not only the Duke of Edinburgh but Her Majesty Queen Mary and His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester—all of those members of the Royal Family—hold an office and that they hold an office of profit and that it is only on that basis that they are liable to Income Tax.
That means that they are liable to Income Tax under Schedule E. If they are liable to the rules of Schedule E, then the expenses which may be deducted from their income for the purpose of arriving at net Income Tax liability must be wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of their office.
I have an Amendment on the Order Paper which would have had the effect of making the allowance to the Duke of Edinburgh under this Clause entirely free of Income Tax and Surtax. That Amendment has been misunderstood in some


quarters. I have received a number of letters asking me whether in addition to this large sum of £40,000 a year I am proposing that the Duke of Edinburgh should be entirely relieved from taxation on this amount. Actually, the purpose of the Amendment—

The Chairman: It was not selected.

Mr. Houghton: No, Sir Charles. That is my difficulty. I do not know whether I can put this in any other way. I will chance my arm to this extent and say that I do not believe that that Amendment would have made any real difference to the Income Tax liability of the Duke of Edinburgh. I say that because I am sure that on any basis upon which the taxpayer can claim a set-off of expenses from Income Tax liability, the Duke of Edinburgh will be able to claim by far the larger proportion of his total allowances as an expense for Income Tax purposes.
He can claim, surely, that were he not the Consort of Her Majesty, he would be a lieutenant-commander in the Navy and that all he would have would be a pair of flannel bags, an evening dress, an odd uniform or two, a squash racket and perhaps a siphon of soda water. He could say, "My standard of living would indeed be modest", as we know it would be for any naval officer of that rank. But because he has become the Consort of Her Majesty the Queen he has to wear a lot of clothes and change them frequently. He has to travel about the country and to live a life which I am sure as a private citizen or as a lieutenant-commander he would neither choose for himself nor be able to afford. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is a commander.] I am sure there is not enough difference between the emoluments of a lieutenant-commander and those of a commander to make all that difference to one's standard of life.
I am also sure that on this occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be inhibited by the customary tradition which precludes Ministers from discussing the private affairs of individual taxpayers. Here we are discussing the annual allowance to be paid to the Duke of Edinburgh. It is surely pertinent to this discussion to know whether in fact or in prospect the bulk of this allowance will be allowed as expenses, and therefore whether no Income Tax or Surtax will

be payable upon it. I have no knowledge whatever of the matter, but I hazard the opinion that of the £40,000 the Duke would be able to claim £38,000 as expenses, and would thus pay tax on only the remaining £2,000.
I hope he will be indebted to me for making out his claim for expenses, and if he is in any difficulty he may be able to quote my remarks in support of his claim. But, in fact, he will not have any difficulty in making such a claim because it is obvious that this allowance is going to be almost wholly expended in the performance of his duties and on the necessary expenses incurred in the discharge of those duties.
Obviously the Committee will not take my word for it, and that is why I am seeking to encourage the Chancellor to be quite candid with the Committee and to say, if not what the position is, what the position may be, and what the practice of the Inland Revenue is in connection with cases of this kind. I am not asking this in any hostile spirit, but I think it would be a pity if the public got the impression that this sum of money is subject to the normal Income Tax and Surtax and is thereby reduced to the comparatively small amount of £4,000 or £5,000 by the present level of taxation.
I think it would be better in arriving at allowances for the expenses of such offices to fix a sum necessary for the purpose and to disregard the element of taxation altogether. That would be the most satisfactory way of doing it, but since my Amendment which had that object has not been selected, I think the Chancellor should tell the Committee whether my surmise is correct or not.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My objection is rather more fundamental. I believe that £40,000 a year is too much to pay to the Duke of Edinburgh, and I do not say this out of any disrespect for the Duke personally. But how does one assess the value of a duke? We used to talk about the Marxian theory of value and the theory of labour hours. I do not know how it is possible to assess the Duke of Edinburgh according to the Marxian theory of value, but I do suggest that when this Government took office we had a very definite opinion given by the Prime Minister concerning Cabinet Ministers.
The Prime Minister thought it necessary to announce that the Members of the Cabinet should reduce their salaries by £1,000 a year. We now find that the Duke of Edinburgh is to receive as much as 10 Cabinet Ministers. Perhaps I am not assessing the relative values of Cabinet Ministers, but if we take that standard it is not possible to argue that £40,000 is a reasonable sum. I understand that the Archbishop of Canterbury receives £8,000 a year, but I do not think the services rendered to the nation by the Duke of Edinburgh will be five times more valuable than those given by the Archbishop.

Hon. Members: What about the Dean?

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Hughes: I do not wish, even remotely, to mention the Dean of Canterbury. I want to find out what particular yardstick one applies in assessing the Duke at £40,000. It is not good enough to look back in the history books to see what was paid to the husband of Queen Victoria, but we should make an attempt to have a more moderate estimate and allowance. The Duke of Edinburgh will be paid more than the members of the National Coal Board, the central executive of our largest industry. If people asked me why I voted in favour of this £40,000, I should not be able to give a satisfactory answer.
According to this Clause, the sum is to be paid to the Duke during his life, and at the beginning of a new reign we have to take into account all kinds of exigencies. It may be that Her Majesty may predecease the Duke, and he will have a widower's pension of £40,000 a year. Members might ask whether the Duke does not require this large sum for the expenses of his office.
The Committee might consider this a little more closely. Presumably he will live with Her Majesty in one of the Palaces already paid for. So he will have no rent to pay. If we read the Report of the Select Committee we find that to make the Civil List look a little less in recent years such things as electric light, coal and fuel are transferred to the Ministry of Works. The telephone bill comes into another Vote. Therefore, I want to know how the Duke can spend £40,000 a year. I presume the Chancellor of the

Exchequer hopes he might invest it in Government stock, at 3½ or 4 per cent.
Perhaps the Duke will read reports of what happened here yesterday and invest the money with the brewers. If an income of £40,000 is granted to him, and he has no bills or rent to pay, then he must invest it, and thus become a capitalist on a big scale. His interests would be those of the Stock Exchange, those of the person who has money invested in breweries, distilleries and all the private enterprise that we on this side want to wipe out. So I say that at the beginning of a new reign we are entitled to ask for this matter to be examined carefully, because there is a watertight case for paying moderate salaries, and this sum, which works out at £769 a week, will sound fantastic to the great majority of people in this country, and cannot be justified except by the hoary old traditional arguments in which the Conservative Party believes because it has a vested interest in it.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: It is remarkable that there has been hardly any contribution to this debate from any hon. Member opposite except from the Government Front Bench. Presumably the Government supporters agree with the Measure under discussion. Yet I think that when criticisms are levelled by the Opposition against proposals put forward by the Government, the Government supporters have a duty to their own electorate to give some reason for their support of such proposals.

Sir H. Williams: When a matter was raised which concerned a back bench Member, I spoke. We are now debating Income Tax and Surtax assessment, and that is a proper subject for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Thomas: I was not thinking particularly of the hon. Member for Croydon East (Sir H. Williams) as representing the whole of the Government back benchers. I certainly realise that he is a very important Member of the party opposite, but I do not think that even in his valuation of his own importance he has reached the stage of thinking that he speaks for the whole of the Government supporters. He has certain colleagues who, I think, are able to make some reasonable contribution to a debate on an important matter of this kind.
I wish to declare my amazement, which I think is shared generally on this side of the Committee and, indeed, in the country as a whole, that no word has come from the Government supporters in explanation of their support of this proposal that vast sums of public money should go to one person at the rate of £40,000 a year, representing a weekly sums which is more than the total annual income of hundreds of thousands of people who work for their living every day of their working lives.
It is astounding that when we have a Measure involving the payment of £40,000 a year to one person, hon. Members opposite have absolutely nothing to say, although they are apparently so exemplary in their duty in fastening attention on the financial reports of every public authority, as we have seen in today's debate on the future of the British Transport Commission. That is Tory democracy in action.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not think the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) need excite himself too much. The Select Committee was composed of practically equal numbers on both sides of the House.

Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be repeating the point he has made on earlier stages of the Bill, that that matter has been fully discussed by a Select Committee. Even if that is so, surely when the Report of a Select Committee comes before the House and this Bill, which is drafted on the basis of that Report, comes before the House, it is the duty of the House to examine and debate it before it comes to a final decision?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is now answering a point I was not intending to make, so he is one ahead of me in the discussion. I was simply going to say that not only did my right hon. and hon. Friends take part in the work of the Select Committee, but they took part on the two previous occasions when the Civil List was discussed; and tonight again my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Ralph Assheton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) have both taken part in the debate. If

others have not taken part it may be that many of the arguments have been fully canvassed and they have no further contribution to make. Anyway, in their loyalty to the duties of the House and to the Royal Family hon. Members on this side are second to none, and I do not want to impart any animosity between one side or another. If there has been any criticism put forward, even by the most violent critics, it has been put forward in the best possible spirit, and so our debates should continue.
Now I come to the arguments of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). The position is, taking the Duke of Edinburgh first, there is only the special exemption in the case of his own income, which I shall describe in a minute. But he is not taxable in respect of his wife's income, and, as the hon. Gentleman is a great expert, no doubt he will wish to folow up the ramifications of this subject.
In the case of other members of the Royal Family, which includes the Duke of Edinburgh, there is no exemption from tax, but allowances for expenses are made under Rule 10 of Schedule E of the Income Tax Act of 1918, now consolidated into Rule 8 of the Ninth Schedule of the Income Tax Act of 1952, the glory of consolidation being to Her Majesty's present Government.
I am not going to stand here as Chancellor and discuss the private accounts of any citizen of this country, whether a member of the Royal Family or not. In fact, one of the most historic traditions of the Inland Revenue is that I could not if I wanted to, because these matters are kept within the bosom of the Inland Revenue. Very right it is, because it would be an impossible system to run otherwise. All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman, who is an expert on these matters, was perfectly right in assuming that a large proportion of the money allowed to the Duke would naturally rank as expenses in view of the nature of his task, and I think we had better leave the matter at that. He was perfectly right in his general assumption. I cannot give him the answer. I do not know the actual details. I imagine he is not quite right in the final figures he came to. That, in general, is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's observations, which I confirm.
Now we come to the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who again took part in our debate on this matter. He raised two main points. First, this sum would continue after the death of the Queen, which, I am sure, we all hope will be a very long deferred contingency. But, in looking ahead, as we have to, in framing the report and the Bill, we have to consider that matter. He is quite right in saying this is allowed to the Duke for life. I really think that is reasonable. The argument in favour of the Duke having this sum after the death of Her Majesty would he even stronger than his having it before, because it would be necessary for his household to be maintained to the same extent after her death.
The hon. Member also raised the question whether this sum was not too much for the Duke of Edinburgh during his life. It is very difficult to give the Committee details of the whole expenditure of the Duke; and I do not like discussing the affairs of other people. But I can assure hon. Members that when we were taking evidence we tried to assess some of the expenditure he would have to make, and it did come to quite a large sum. He has to conduct a Household, with its staff expenses. He is a separate personality; and whereas Her Majesty's Privy Purse is now only £60,000, the Act of 1937 fixed His Majesty's Privy Purse at £110,000. The main difference, leaving aside the £17,000 which Her Majesty has very graciously made available from savings, is due to the fact that the Duke is now regarded as a separate entity.
11.45 p.m.
It may appear peculiar to some hon. Members that there is need for a separate Household; not in the personal, domestic sense, of course, but in the public sense. We should not underestimate the duties which the Duke has to carry out; there is the considerable expense of travel, and the maintenance of his position; such matters as subscriptions, the amount of which quite surprised members of the Select Committee when receiving evidence. I am perfectly satisfied that this sum will be spent in his public duties and on his maintenance, and on his Household, without waste. I do not say that the sum should be larger, but I do say that it is a sum reasonable and suitable for the position of the Duke.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire also made remarks about the Duke's establishment in relation to other dignitaries, whether religious or the National Coal Board. I suggest that I had better not enter into a discussion on that, nor to answer the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) about the soda water.

Mr. James Hudson: I am not so interested in that as in the £40,000 which is now considered to be practically tax free—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, subject to arrangements which will enable him to enjoy the greater part of the £40,000 so that it will be equivalent to an income of £1 million odd a year.

Mr. Butler: In so far as this sum is allocated and spent in regard to expenses, that contention would not hold water. The hon. Member had better consult with his hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and become instructed on these matters. I think that I have answered the main points raised by hon. Members, and I hope that we may now have this. Clause.

Mr. T. O'Brien: After the personal expenses of £40,000 proposed to be allocated to the Duke, has he not to pay salaries to his immediate staff? People who, in business, we should call executives? Has he not to do that, apart from paying the domestic staff; and is it not a fact that the salaries which he pays, if increased to what would be a "commercial" rate, the allowance would have to be greater?

Mr. Butler: I used the expression that the Duke had to maintain his Household, and the hon. Member is correct in interpreting as he does.

Mr. Fernyhough: This is a loosely worded Clause, which has no qualifications at all. I know that what I am about to say may be thought to be indecent, but I am one of those people who do not believe in angels. Whether they are royal persons or road sweepers, people are all liable occasionally to go off the rails, or to go wrong. What disturbs me is that the possibility may arise—though I hope it will not—because the Duke is a human being, that the domestic felicity may go wrong. [Interruption.] I


know; I said this might hurt hon. Members. But it has happened before. Look into history. It is no good hon. Members defending their Kings, Queens and Dukes as if they were angels; they are ordinary human beings, with the vices and virtues of human beings, and we have the right to say so.

Mr. L. M. Lever: On a point of order. When we are discussing the question of emoluments, why should we assume the vices of the people whom we are discussing? Why should not we appreciate their virtues rather than other parts of them?

The Chairman: I think that it is possible to imagine all sorts of things about people and it is rather wrong in the circumstances.

Mr. Fernyhough: I would be failing in my duty if I were to support the allocation of the sum of £40,000 to one individual for life, irrespective of what might happen. I was not sent here to agree to things like that, and I do not think hon. Members should be so thin-skinned about these things and pretend that they can never happen. They should not be offended if somebody says that they might happen. It is something that could arise, and I think I am free to say so in the House. Hon. Members should be free to speak their minds without being howled at by a lot of hooligans—[Interruption.]—or people who should know better. I hope that the occasion will not arise when I shall be able to say, "I told you so," but nevertheless there is that possibility.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(PROVISION FOR WIDOW OF THE DUKE OF CORNWALL.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Carmichael: I cannot understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer pressing a Clause of this kind. It reads:
In the event of the death during the present reign of the Duke of Cornwall for the time being leaving a widow, there shall be paid to her during her life the yearly sum of thirty

thousand pounds, to commence from the date of his death.
As I said in an earlier debate on this issue, the Duke of Cornwall is three years of age; we are living in the year 1952, and with the ordinary span of life of three score years and ten I hope that the Duke will live at least for 67 years. This Government regard themselves as the most intelligent Government we have ever had; but they are the only people who believe that, although they are not prepared to put it to the test.
The fact is that they are preparing a pension for the widow of a boy of three years of age, yet the Government regards themselves as an intelligent Government. It is putting down in plain English the sum of £30,000 because of the serious worry there might be, and the difficulties, for a person who may not be born yet. I am not arguing about the sum of money the widow ought to get; but I think it is treating future Governments with contempt that the present Government should be deciding the pension for the widow of a boy of three years old. Surely there is justification for leaving out a Clause of this kind. Surely we have some faith in the people who will govern in the future. Why be so early in dealing with this subject? This may take us to the year 2,000. There is not an hon. Member sitting on either side of this Committee who will be known then.
I do not want to go into the question of immortality. All I am saying is that by the year 2,000, not even the hon. Member for Croydon, East, who regards himself as one of the great pillars of Parliamentary Government, will be known. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us some reason why the Select Committee was so anxious to insert this Clause into the Bill. We have a right to legislate for a reasonable period; but it is wrong to bring in Measures and, in a few years, to have to amend them. We are entitled to look ahead for 10 years, perhaps, in this case, for 20 years; but to be preparing a pension for the widow of a boy of three years old is, I think, carrying legislation to extremes.
Is the Chancellor afraid that future Governments will neglect a situation of this kind, should it arise? If that be the case, it is a terrible condemnation of the future. I am satisfied that the Chancellor


does not believe that. I am satisfied the Chancellor believes, as all intelligent men believe, that in the general process of Government the children of the future will be able to govern much better than the people of the past because of the great experience and knowledge they gain. I therefore ask him, quite sincerely, why it was necessary to introduce this Clause at this stage for a boy of three.

12 midnight.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The general decision of the Select Committee upon which the legislation was based was that the Civil List should last for the period of the reign, and that we should therefore look far ahead. This is the most extreme example in the Bill which carries into legislative effect this looking far ahead, and to that extent, as I said before, the hon. Gentleman has a point which is worthy of being answered. It is possible that if the Duke of Cornwall marries comparatively young and his widow predeceases him owing to some unfortunate accident—

Mr. Ede: How can his widow predecease him?

Mr. Butler: If the Duke of Cornwall marries young and he predeceases his wife, a contingency would arise which would mean that a very considerable financial provision might be necessary, which would upset the calculations the Committee have endeavoured to make. It is with a view to looking ahead to meet that sort of contingency that this provision has been put in, and I sincerely recommend the Committee to retain it. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this may never arise, in which case we need not, to use the Scottish word which fell from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), fash ourselves too much tonight. But if the contingency were to arise, then we should have been wise to have inserted it. It is for that reason, not for merely one side of the Committee but, I think, to meet the view taken by at any rate a large number of the Select Committee, that we have included this provision.

Mr. Michael Foot: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the view of the majority of the Select Committee, would he also take

into account that this proposal would have been governed by a proposal made by a minority of the Select Committee that there should be a review of this matter every 10 years, and that if that proposal of the minority of the Select Committee had been approved at an earlier part of the proceedings it would have governed this proposal?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I appeal to the Chancellor to look at this Clause again with a view to redrafting it before the Report stage, because in the Select Committee there was a very considerable minority against this proposal. I believe that there is a body of opinion in this Committee which, while it has not supported us on other matters, is inclined to agree with us on this. Are we not thinking too far ahead in considering the possible wife of this young boy of three? Suppose he decides to marry a widow with six children? What will be the position then? Are we not piling up burdens upon posterity?
In the year 2000 a Chancellor might come along and say, "Well, I justify this by something that a Chancellor said five minutes after midnight when the Committee was too tired, and when the Chancellor was obviously getting a little mixed up himself." Who knows what might happen in the future. Suppose this young royal personage decides to do an inverted Seretse Khama and marries a black woman? It would not upset me, but it might upset a future Archbishop of Canterbury.
I suggest that all these are exigencies which might be taken into consideration, and it is really fantastic for us to be planning so far ahead when we are so short-sighted about other things. I appeal to the Chancellor to give us some small concession, because he has given us nothing yet.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I had not intended to intervene. I take the view that the Select Committee had studied the matter and reported, and I was prepared to accept their proposals. But some of the unctuous observations made from the other side in the last half hour have disturbed me not a little, and so have one or two of those made from this side.
The proposal in this Clause is that the lady whom the Duke of Cornwall marries


shall be entitled to £30,000 a year after his death, for life, wherever she lives, whatever her health may be, and whatever she is doing. It really is quite nonsense for the Government to utter protests to observations made, and courageously made, by some of my hon. Friends, when we all know, in fact, that the previous Duke of Cornwall's wife is not allowed in the country at all and she does not get any money. So far as I know he is very happily married.
It is nonsense to say we cannot postulate the remote possibility, which we all deplore, of some other form of trouble coming. All of us admire very much the very decent home life of the Royal Family over the last 30 or 40 years. All of us value that, and all believe it is one of the great assets they have in the hearts of the people.
But when we get a sort of comment that it is lese-majesty for my hon. Friends to suggest that the Royal Family have matrimonial difficulties one must remember the example, immediately preceding, of the Duke of Cornwall's wife—he married, at any rate, as Prince of Wales—not even being allowed at his Coronation. [Interruption.] Yes, George IV. I believe he did enter into bonds of matrimony at a time when it was necessary to provide an heir to the Crown, and he had 20 illegitimate children to the lady to whom he was devoted with a devotion that never failed. I am told I am a little in error, and I am quite prepared to say I have complimented him too much on his physical powers.
What is the reason given for this proposition? The reason is that members of the Royal Family have to maintain a large staff. I suggest that that large staff is engaged in duties that the Royal Family themselves would be very glad to be relieved of. When I hear it said that some of them are working at low salaries and are due for a rise, I say it is a well-known fact that half the trouble between the Royal Family and the House of Commons, or rather the people, has been caused by the fact that many of their staff are die-hard Conservatives of the most bone-headed and Colonel Blimp type. Some of the decisions made recently show that, and it is time somebody said it. Meanwhile, some of those who work in this House of Commons,

the secretaries of members, are still trying to get a minimum wage of £7 a week. My colleague, the former Member for Oldham, East, who broke his health in this House, is living in poverty on practically no income at all.

Sir H. Williams: What has that to do with it?

Mr. Hale: The hon. Member for Croydon, East wants to know what this has to do with it. May I tell him?

Sir H. Williams: I do not see why the matter should be brought into this discussion if the hon. Member underpays his secretary, which is apparently his allegation.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged for that intervention. I always welcome the hon. Gentleman's interventions, because they are exceedingly helpful to the argument being put from the other side. The intervention was made in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), when it was said that that Members of Parliament get some expenses without paying tax upon them.
It is rather interesting that at the moment when the Government are trying to pass a Clause to pay £30,000 a year to an hypothetical lady, wherever she may be living and whatever the state of her health, in the event of an event happening which may never happen, the announcement is made today that it is impossible for the Government to consider making any increase in the salaries of Members of this Committee who have to provide their staff out of their salaries and to provide all their postages and their living expenses in London, when some of them never take a meal in the Dining Room but live on cheap snacks in the tea room.
I should not have intervened but for some of the cheap gibes addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who spoke with such courage. I represent a constituency with widespread unemployment, to which I should be very glad if Ministers on the Front Bench opposite would pay some attention. When the Civil List was last discussed some years ago I did not get one letter about it. On this occasion I have had many letters.
I have discussed the matter in my constituency with two widely representative discussion groups. I have had nothing but protest in the letters. I do not say that there were many or that I attribute too much importance to them, but there is ample evidence that there is real disquiet about these proposals being made at a time when everybody else is being asked to tighten their belts and to suffer.
I would say to the Chancellor that this is the one Clause in the Bill which could be withdrawn at once without doing the slightest harm to anybody. An hon. Gentleman opposite says that nothing would be saved. That is the incredible Tory mind. Nothing would be saved in terms of money—do not let us worry about principle.

Sir H. Williams: What about the hon. Member's secretary's salary.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Member has now reached the stage when he is so discourteous that he addresses me across the Floor without rising to his feet. That is not discourtesy to me, Sir Charles, but discourtesy to you.
The Chancellor put his case temperately, moderately and persuasively, and he emphasised time after time the largeness of the establishment which royal personages have to keep, the necessity for staff and so on. I perform a great many public duties, I partake in the debates in the House from time to time and I have to try to prepare myself for them., I represent a large urban constituency and I sit on a number of committees, and all I can afford is one secretary, at the minimum trade union rates, to try to carry out the whole of these vast duties.
It seems to me nonsense to say that this lady who may be living abroad, and very probably may return to the country from which she came, will necessarily need a staff which will cost her something like £25,000 a year or £500 a week. I suggest that there is every reason for reconsidering this Clause. I hope that the Chancellor will look at the matter again.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(APPLICATION OF SUMS PAID FOR THE QUEEN'S CIVIL LIST.)

12.15 a.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(i) that amount shall be available, up to twenty-five thousand pounds, for making contributions towards expenses of the performance of duties pertaining to the Royal Family by those of Their Royal Highnesses for whom Parliament has not made provision.
The object of this Amendment is to clear up a doubt which arose as a result of an interchange between myself and the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) in the course of our previous discussions. He was kind enough to accept the explanation I gave at that time, that by a deficit on, say, Class III it would have been possible for Her Majesty to spend the money involved in helping the members of the Royal Family to whose needs particular attention was drawn in the Select Committee's Report.
However, on looking at the matter again, and in order to remove doubt, we thought it wise to make this clear. Therefore we placed on the Order Paper this Amendment, since when we see that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have also placed an Amendment on the Order Paper intended, I believe, to cover the same point.
As that is the case, perhaps I need not say much about it, because they know the reasons for this Amendment as I do. The reasons are that this makes clear the wishes of the Select Committee that this sum shall be available.
for making contributions towards expenses of the performance of duties pertaining to the Royal Family by those of Their Royal Highnesses for whom Parliament has not made provision.
That means close members of the Royal Family. The two succeeding Amendments are consequential.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Chancellor is very lucky because none of us has been so fortunate with our Amendments. This is the one lamb which happens to escape.
I think hon. Members are entitled to have a little more explanation of what exactly this means. It may be quite clear to the Members who are on the Select Committee, but it is not clear to those of us who are not. I should like to know exactly who are their Royal Highnesses who are to be allocated this sum of


£25,000 a year. What, for example, is the mystery of the Duke of Windsor? Is any part of this £25,000 to be allocated to the Duke of Windsor?
I am not objecting to it, because I believe that in the circumstances the Duke of Windsor, who is a member of the Royal Family, deserves to be compensated if he has the handicap of not being able to do useful work as a result of his education and training. What exactly does this reference to their Royal Highnesses mean?
We were told it referred to one of the Duchesses. Does that mean that we are now committing ourselves to pay £25,000 a year to one person, or to two or three persons? Could not the Chancellor be explicit and tell us exactly what we are legislating for and to whom we are allocating this sum of £25,000 a year?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am glad the Chancellor had second thoughts on this point. It seemed to us, even after he had given the explanation during the Second Reading debate that Her Majesty would be able to spend this money under Classes II and III, that there was something rather odd about that situation, because Classes II and III are the salaries and expenses of Her Majesty's Household.
It was clearly laid down in the Select Committee Report that this £25,000 or part of the Contingency Margin should be made available, not for anything to do with Her Majesty's Household, but for certain members of the Royal Family for whom Parliament made no provision and who had to undertake a number of duties and incur heavy expenses in doing so.
Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman has done very well to bring forward this Amendment. I think the new subsection makes it perfectly clear what this money is for. Indeed, it is a good deal more precise than the Amendments we put down, and in the circumstances we do not propose to move our Amendments. We shall therefore be glad to support the Government in this modification of the Bill.

Sir H. Williams: I am glad that this Amendment has been put forward, because I was worried for the same reason as the right hon. Gentlemen the Mem-

ber for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). Had it not been, I think five people—Her Majesty, the Royal Trustees, that is the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, the Queen's Treasurer of the day, and finally the auditor of the Civil List, who is the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury—would have been gravely embarrassed. I cannot imagine a Bill like this, when enacted, coming before the courts for interpretation, but if one of the four persons other than Her Majesty challenged the use of part of the supplemental revenue for Classes II and III, I think that action might open serious questions and Her Majesty might be put in the gravest embarrassment.
I do not think people realise that the accounts for Classes II and III are audited. There was a headline in the newspapers, "Queen's Money £475,000," about which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made some caustic comment in an earlier debate. It is most misleading. The bulk of it has to be spent in accordance with the instruction of Parliament under the First Schedule to the Bill. It is only the Privy Purse which is personally for Her Majesty, and a great deal is probably spent on public rather than private matters. The Duke of Windsor does not enter into the picture, as the hon. Gentleman who raised it must have known if he had read the Report of the Select Committee. We all know that there are two ladies of outstanding distinction who incur vast expenditure and are hard up, and they should not be asked to continue to face embarrassment financially in the discharge of duties which are acceptable to the whole nation.

Mr. Carmichael: This addition is being made because there are some members of the Royal Family, or members close to the Royal Family, who are financially embarrassed. I do not think anybody would object to some allocation or grant being made, but why £25,000? How is that sum reached? If it be the case that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will extend for the whole of the present reign then other persons may be added to the list of people who are in financial difficulties. Is £25,000 liberal enough? In the event of the stage being reached where Her Majesty has outlived


these persons, is this sum still to be allocated to her? [Interruption.] I do not mind a decent interjection, but this constant irritation by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) when we are trying to discuss this in a friendly manner gets us nowhere, and I do not want to lose my temper with him.
I do not ask who are the people involved, because the Amendment refers to "Their Royal Highnesses," but I think, without being too inquisitive or personal, if they are allocated a sum of money some idea of the numbers involved might be given, even if their names are not disclosed. What happens when the numbers diminish? Is the £25,000 still allocated to Her Majesty? [Interruption.] I know sufficient about the English language to know the difference between maximum and minimum, but a figure has been laid down, and I want to know why the sum should be £25,000 as against £30,000 or £20,000. Surely that is a reasonable request to make. I think the Chancellor might tell us that there is justification for arriving at such a figure, and what action is to be taken about this money in the event of the numbers involved diminishing.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Select Committee, to use their words:
noted with concern that there are several members of the Royal Family who, by virtue of their position near the Throne, are excluded from ordinary commercial activities and must, of necessity, devote their lives to public duties, and fulfil heavy programmes of official engagements, in spite of the fact that Parliament has made no financial provision for them at all.
This drafting is an attempt to carry out that phrase, because it is only those who may be described as "Their Royal Highnesses" who are precluded from commercial activities. That is the reason for these words being inserted.
If there are members attached to the Royal Family, or members who are not Royal Highnesses or are no longer Royal Highnesses, they are not precluded from commercial activities and, therefore, could make a living. This provision is intended to be strictly confined to those who are unable to make a commercial living by reason of being Royal Highnesses. That is a sensible provision.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) asked what would happen

in the future. The sum of £25,000 was agreed upon as being roughly the amount that might well be necessary for Her Majesty to dispense in this way, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) so wisely, clearly and frequently remarked, it is a maximum sum, and I do not envisage that it will always be spent. In the event of it not being spent, it will accrue to the Contingencies Margin, or the Supplementary Provisions as it is now called, under a trustee.
At the end of the reign, if there is any balance, that will be for Parliament to decide about. If there is a margin left, in so far as this sum is not used for the specific purpose set out, it will accrue to the Contingencies Margin and will be available as a surplus.
I ought to mention a personal point about the Duke of Windsor. It would not be possible to interpret this Clause as referring to him, because the Amendment says:
… towards expenses of the performance of duties pertaining to the Royal Family".
That is deliberately put in to cover those persons who actually perform duties pertaining to our present Royal Family.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 41, after "classes," insert "so much of."

In line 42, after "provision," insert:
as is not applied in making such contributions as aforesaid."—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, to leave out, "the Treasury may direct that," and to insert "then."
This is a drafting Amendment which relates to subsection (2) of this Clause, in which the word "may" occurs, whereas in the draft of subsection (1, b) the word "shall" occurs. This Amendment is a little more complicated than simply substituting "shall" for "may", but has the same result. This puts upon the Treasury a duty which some hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee thought was sensible.

Mr. Gaitskell: Here again the Chancellor has accepted a suggestion from this side of the Committee, and we are much obliged to him.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 5, after "excess," insert "shall."

In line 10, after "III" insert:
and of any contributions not exceeding twenty-five thousand pounds made as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section."—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—(CONTINUANCE OF ENACT MENTS, REPEAL AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I am very sorry to detain the Committee at this late hour, but it is very unusual to have any opportunity of discussing the Civil List pensions. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few questions about them, because the way Civil List pensions are granted appears to be something of a mystery.
As I understand it, the decision to grant a Civil List pension is entirely in the discretion of the Prime Minister and subject to no rules or regulations whatever, and that that applies also to the Royal Bounty grants. As I understand it, the purpose of the Civil List pensions is to grant pensions to people who have achieved national distinction in art, science or literature and who may be needy at some later stage of their lives. I have looked through the list of these people who are in receipt of Civil List pensions and I am bound to say—I will name no names, for that would be invidious—that they do not strike one as persons who have achieved national distinction in art, science or literature. The great majority are people of whom one has never heard.
I do not hold that particularly against them. Nor would I wish to see their pensions taken away. But it does raise the question of how these pensions come to be given in the first instance, particularly as I understand that those in receipt of Royal Bounty grants are not so distinguished as those receiving Civil List pensions. If they are not so distinguished one wonders what their title to Royal Bounty grants is at all. So what I would like to know is who says these persons

are distinguished, who advises the Prime Minister that they are persons of national distinction who are worthy of receiving these Civil List pensions. I understand that as far as literature is concerned the Royal Literary Fund is sometimes consulted on this matter and they will be asked for their opinion. Again, they are not asked for their opinion whether a person is distinguished in literature but whether the person actually needs the sum of money proposed.
Again, when the Society of Authors was in communication with the Prime Minister's office on this matter they were told their best means of putting forward applications, if they thought there were people in literature who had fallen on hard days, was to do it through the Royal Literary Fund. That does not seem very sensible as the Royal Literary Fund does not inquire about the literary ability of the persons concerned. Again, I understand that another way in which a pension may be acquired is by the person concerned being sponsored by two other people. They do not have to be particularly distinguished. They send the name into the Prime Minister's office and a quite arbitrary decision is taken in the Prime Minister's office as to whether or not a pension should be granted.
As we can only discuss this matter on a very rare opportunity, we ought to be told a little more about the workings of Civil List pensions. I would not in any way suggest that persons who have been granted them ought not to have been granted them, but since one sees that their names are not particularly distinguished in the main, it does raise the question as to whether persons are not admitted to the Civil List pensions who are worthy of them. It may well be that people who are recognised as of great distinction may not receive pensions when they should have done.
Of course, with the present Prime Minister, who, as we all know, has a great interest in literature, there may be no danger; but even he cannot devote much of his time to matters of this sort, and it should be more widely known how such applications can be made when a person, or a dependant of that person, is in need. Very little is known about the Civil List pensions; to whom one has to apply, and when application may be made. Then, so far as I am concerned,


it is a complete mystery as to what state one's income has to be reduced to before one is eligible for a Civil List pension. In order that the methods may be more widely known, and in order that we may have some information on the other matters which I have raised, I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could say something on those matters either tonight or on the Report stage of the Bill.
In conclusion, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having increased the amount which can be paid out afresh each year on the pensions.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I believe that this is the moment when we should have the opportunity of expressing a point of view which is generally shared in the Committee; and that is that many of these small sums are very niggardly, and in strange contrast to the much more munificent amounts given in the Civil List.
I know a distinguished man of letters in this country who received a small pension from the Civil List. He was on the dole, and the next week, the authorities reduced his dole by the amount of the award under the Civil List. I must, in all fairness, say that the Prime Minister, after I had spoken to him about this, agreed that the matter should be considered at the end of the year. But, before then, he went out of office, and the present Prime Minister raised the sum at the earliest possible moment.
The time has come when the Chancellor should look into this question, because we are far too parsimonious with some of these pensions. A little more humane treatment should be given to people who have rendered distinguished service to our nation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Under the original Resolution of 1834, these pensions are given to those who, by their contributions to science, or literature, or the arts, have earned the gratitude of their nation, and the grateful thanks of their Sovereign. The total of new pensions in any one year was raised by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, and has now been raised again to £5,000. Hon. Members should be aware that the pensions come in the Civil List Bill, and are administered by the Prime Minister.
The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) asks for more publicity about them, but I am assured by those who administer them, under the Prime Minister, that no more publicity is necessary; that we need not worry on that score. If attention is paid to this debate, so much the better. As the Leader of the House said on 9th July, as long as we can see that general standards are maintained and that the criterion is that those who really need these pensions most receive them, I think that the hon. Member has done a service in mentioning this matter this evening.
The only other question raised was how this matter is administered under the Prime Minister. I think that the hon. Member must leave it to the Prime Minister to conduct this matter in the manner in which it has been conducted by previous Prime Ministers. We cannot describe the detailed administration tonight, but the hon. Member can take it that it follows the method adopted by the previous Prime Minister and the one before him. People who are well aware of the circumstances and who are accustomed to the administration of this matter advise the Prime Minister; but I will certainly see that further attention is given to this question in view of the fact that it has been raised.
Approximately £32,000 was spent in the year 1951–52 and, with the extra £5,000, it is probable that this total will go up in proportion as the new annual total is added to the total for the previous year. The average sum paid to each person is £175 to £177; but it is possible that by means of this extra annual sum the existing pensions may be practically as much or, at any rate, in balance with, the new pensions. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman and that he will be satisfied that he has been wise in raising this matter.

Mr. Wyatt: I do not think it is generally known in what state one's income has to be before one can make an application for a Civil List pension with some reasonable prospect of success. That is one point. The other point is this: I wonder if the Chancellor can see that inquiries are made into the possibility of raising the amounts of these Civil List pensions rather more than the highest level. I think that it is about


£250 a year, which is not very much if there is no other source of income.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: The Chancellor has already stated that it is only an historical accident that these arrangements happen to come into this Civil List Bill. If that is so, would it not be more business-like and also afford an opportunity for more frequent review if these arrangements were embodied in an entirely separate piece of legislation, thus giving the House the opportunity of adding to the total amount available and generally examining the circumstances and arrangements under which these pensions are from time to time awarded? Would it not be possible to make an arrangement of that kind?

Mr. Butler: I could not give the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) any information as to a sort of publicised means test which it would be necessary to pass before one should apply for a pension of this kind. The main point in relation to applications is that a person would not apply unless he was in need, because he would know that if he did he would be taking away the chance of somebody who was in need of this sum of money. Further, if people apply they are given full particulars and every consideration is given to them.
In answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas), it has not escaped our notice that it is a coincidence that this matter arises only on Civil List Bills; but we have decided to leave the matter where it is and to raise the sum. Moving though some of these cases are, I do not think it would be wise to disturb the arrangement under which this question comes up for discussion under Civil List Bills.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered this day, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(HYDROCARBON OILS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

12.47 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I rise with diffidence in the hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to help the Committee in regard to the need for this Measure. Up to this year it has been usual to present to the House the Isle of Man Customs Accounts prior to the introduction of the Bill. Last year, my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench felt that it would be best to present these accounts in dummy. I believe that has been going on for a considerable period.
Therefore, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were not able to study the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill before the accounts on which the Bill was based were introduced. The date on which this Bill is introduced is dictated in the original Act of 1867, by which it was decided that by 30th of June the accounts of the Isle of Man Customs should be laid before the House.
We have now reached the point where we have the cause preceded by its own effect by a great interval of time, because under the Amendment made in the Act it is not necessary to present the accounts on which this Measure is based until 31st of December. It is now a little difficult for the Committee to reach any proper conclusion on this matter. The accounts on which this calculation has been based will not be before the House for four or five months.
As I understand, this Clause is based on a resolution come to by the Tynwald. The difficulty hon. Members are in is that for some reason that resolution is not available to the House. It might be desirable if the resolution come to by the Isle of Man were at least reported to the House, and that there was some detail given of the reasons why they had seen fit to fix the tax at a particular rate. Sometimes the Isle of Man follows the level of taxation in this country; sometimes it does not.
Why they do, or do not, is shrouded in mystery, because we have not had an opportunity of seeing the resolution of the Tynwald. We previously defined the matter by examining the Isle of Man Customs Accounts and the Isle of Man Accumulated Fund. Then it was possible to decide whether the amount to be collected in Customs Duty was too high or too low; but until we have before us the figures of the Accumulated Fund it it difficult to reach any proper conclusion.
Once the House has come to that decision there is a new obligation presented to the Financial Secretary of explaining, in lieu of the accounts, why these measures are necessary in regard to the Isle of Man. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary would not think it better to reconsider this whole idea in case we perhaps came to a wrong conclusion on the last occasion without adequate explanation. We have not taken him by surprise because we have put down one or two Amendments, and perhaps he could tell us exactly what was the resolution of the Tynwald, why they came to it, whether the Lieutenant-Governor was able to veto it or alter it in any way, whether the Treasury gave their consent to it, and, if not, why not? What exactly is the position, and why is it necessary in relation to the general funds of the Isle of Man Customs that this particular tax should be imposed?

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am sorry that the Amendment we tabled to this Clause was not fortunate enough to be selected by you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, because it seemed to me to raise a somewhat important point which would have many ramifications. The Isle of Man, as hon. Members know, is a comparatively small island, although long in history, being mentioned by Caesar, having a history as long as the history of this island. There is no point in the Isle of Man from which it is possible to walk 10 miles in more than one direction, and the result of that is that motoring there is under a very special difficulty.
I think that the consideration of this Clause raises a very fundamental issue in more than one connection. It is lamentably true that there have been very few debates dealing with the affairs of the Isle of Man for the last 17 years. Between 1945 and 1950 there was a great deal of

legislation going through, and there might then have been a tendency for us to regard this as a comparatively small matter, although it is to the Isle of Man a very large matter.
It therefore seems to me that in this Session, in which no major Bill of any importance has been passed, that it would be very fit and proper that we should devote a little of our time to the affairs of the Isle of Man. Fortunately, we have 9½ hours before the Standing Committee sits tomorrow, in which we can deal with exceedingly important and very complicated affairs of taxation in the Isle of Man.
I am very glad to see so many hon. Gentlemen opposite listening to this debate, because they should realise that the whole question of taxation in the Isle of Man raises matters of very great importance to Britain and especially to Lancashire. There is much to be said for the island's point of view and much to be said for ours, but certainly, in Lancashire, it is regarded still as a very grave public scandal that people who make their money in Oldham can go to the Isle of Man and live the rest of their lives paying Income Tax which was 2s. 6d. in the £ and has, I believe, recently been increased to 4s. The time has come when we should consider our financial relationship.
The Financial Secretary will have all these matters at his finger tips. We, unfortunately, with the limited secretarial help we are able to get, have to try to extract figures from a mass of highly complicated documents, which are not very informative and are exceedingly difficult to find. In fact, it is fair to say that the documents that give the Isle of Man side of the matter are not in the Library at all, and practically every other document that gives any information on the subject has already been taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).
However, in the limited time at my disposal I have tried to familiarise myself with a number of details. I am sure the Financial Secretary will agree that it is a matter of great complexity, and the time has come when there should be some effort at clarification. Things in the island have altered very much since it was purchased by this country for £70,000 in the reign of George III. It is fair to say—and this is an important matter in


considering fiscal issues—that there has not been a great deal of alteration in the population.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that this debate is on the Motion that the Clause stand part and that the Clause deals with oil.

Mr. Bing: I think the point my hon. Friend was dealing with was the calculation of the fiscal population of the Isle of Man. Taxation in the Isle of Man is based on a complex calculation of fiscal population, which takes into account an average number of holidaymakers who visit the island. The tax is related not to the actual population, but to a term referred to in the earlier Isle of Man Customs Act of 1897.

Mr. Hale: 1894.

Mr. Bing: I thank my hon. Friend for his assistance. The point is that it is the fiscal population.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for saying what I was about to say. This is an exceedingly complex matter. The original arrangements, which have lasted for 20 or 30 years, were based on the theory of the common purse. We are saying, in this Clause, to what is from many points of view an independent island, having its own curious and admirable form of government—

Mr. Bing: And an island half way to Northern Ireland.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that both for the sake of the Committee and the Chair there will be one speech at a time.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful, Mr. Hopkin Morris, for your protection.
We are now dealing with a Bill which commences with a whole series of impositions of Customs on an island which has independent government. Therefore, this Bill, even when it passes this House, has to be accepted by the Tynwald. Indeed, some of the Amendments that were tabled have not been accepted because they were not in accordance with the agreements made by the Tynwald.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sure that the hon. Member can raise a large number of very important constitutional issues, but I fail to see how they arise on this Question because the Clause deals merely with the taxation of oil.

Mr. Hale: I am doing my best to explain. This is the third time you have said that, Mr. Hopkin Morris, before I have finished the sentence in which I was trying to explain, courteously and fully, the complex machinery which makes it necessary for the Committee to discuss it on the consideration of this Bill.
I cannot produce the document, because there is only one document in the Library. It cannot be taken out, because it is the document laid on the Table which gives the revenues from this particular taxation under this Clause—the amount that is raised and how it is distributed. The only copy of that account is, indeed, a carbon copy from the Treasury, available in the Library.
The question arises, inevitably, on almost every Clause of the Bill, and if I can state quite briefly the exceptionally complex financial arrangements I am sure that we shall save a great deal of time. These complex arrangements have to be considered in relation to other Customs taxes we impose, because although we collect the money we pay it to the Isle of Man. Therefore, it is proper to consider whether we collect it or not, whether we pay it over, and many other circumstances that arise.
If I may go back: the original arrangement was that we should collect the whole of the Customs for the Isle of Man and deduct the cost of collection. As my hon. and learned Friend said, under the financial arrangement made in 1894 and varied since there has to be a computation of the fiscal population. The normal population of the Isle of Man has varied, according to recent figures, from something like 48,000 to 61,000, but the higher figure was taken at a time when there was a holiday population and some allowance has to be made. If we set the normal population at about 50,000—that is, the static, unvariable population—we should be giving a fair figure.
1.0 a.m.
There must be added to that 50,000, for the purposes of the computation of Customs, a figure which I think has been estimated recently at about 38,000 or 39,000. That is based upon the number of visitors to the Principality which has amounted in recent years to about 60,000 a year. I think that every hon. Member will rejoice that so many people, including 25,000 who travelled by air in 1947, have taken the opportunity to visit the Isle of Man and to enjoy its benefits and study its customs. When I speak of customs I do not, of course, refer to them in the limited sense of this Bill.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) does not question what the hon. Gentleman is saying except that he called the Isle of Man a Principality. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is not.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged. This is a highly technical point. The Stanley family were originally Kings of Man until about the 15th or 16th century when one of the members of the family said that he would rather be a great lord than a small king and he himself adopted the title of lord. In 1765, when the island was sold by the Duke of Atholl to this country, the rights of lordship ceased from that point of view. It is interesting to note in passing that the terms of that purchase were £70,000 and an annuity of something like £2,000 a year for the joint lives of the Duke and Duchess.

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Yes, but we are dealing with hydrocarbon oils in this Clause.

Mr. Hale: It is most difficult. I thought that I had just convinced your predecessor, Sir Charles, about the relevance of the argument I am putting. I do not want to weary the Committee by repeating it.
We are really dealing with the collection of Customs by the British Government not for the benefit of the British Government or the revenue of the British Government but for the revenue of an independent island, and this money has to he paid over.
Therefore, it is necessary for us to study at some time, during our consideration of this Bill, precisely how that

machinery is working at the moment and to ascertain from the Financial Secretary whether the resolution of 1949 has yet been given effect to by the Tynwald. Therefore, I suggested to your predecessor that if one could cover these points roughly, and not too fully, we might clarify the discussion from both points of view and help to shorten it as far as possible.
The only point I was making at that stage was that the revenue which we collected for the island—although I agree that we charge the expenses of collection—has increased fantastically. The figures which were filed on 30th October last are of course, the figures for the year ending in 1951. I must say, having complimented the Comptroller and Auditor General on the accounts which he has prepared on a previous occasion, that these accounts are hopelessly inadequate.
In the accounts of the Revenue expenditure in respect of Customs there is a term "Miscellaneous insular receipts, £137,538 19s. 1d." which, with no other details given, receives precisely the amount of attention which a contribution by the Brewers' Society would receive in the Conservative Party accounts. It is said to be assessed under "T.L.F. 4840/2" which amounts to no less than £1,705,825. No one can tell me what "T.L.F." is. The Financial Secretary might nod his head. I thought perhaps it meant Treasury Letter. Someone else said that it meant "Times Leader," and someone else suggested that it might mean Tynwald Legislature.
I do not know where a Member of this Committee should go to ascertain whether these figures are accurate or not, where they have come from, on what basis they have been computed and how the division is made. It is unfortunate that according to the note in these accounts there was an agreement come to in 1949 which varied the existing arrangement very considerably. The old arrangement was that the Isle of Man would grant to the Revenue of this country an annual sum of £10,000, which sum was intended to be in respect of the defence of the Isle of Man by this country.

The Chairman: That does not arise on this Clause.

Mr. Hale: The whole point we are discussing is whether we should continue to collect Customs in the Isle of Man—in this case it is oil, and it arises on every Clause—and render all these services to the island, and whether we should pass this Clause as it stands or suggest some alternative arrangement. It is fair to say that this is the only opportunity on which these important constitutional principles can be discussed in this House.
I understood it had been said that some of the Amendments I tabled came into conflict with the decision of the Tynwald, and we are in the fantastic position that the debates of the Tynwald are not available here at all. I have to rely on the fact that there is a note in these accounts saying that the new arrangement of 1949 has not yet come into force, that £84,000 has been put to reserve for that purpose, and that it is hoped the Tynwald will pass the resolution.
I want the Financial Secretary to tell us before we pass this Clause whether the Tynwald have passed the resolution, whether the new arrangement has come into force, what revenue we shall get from it, and what will be the new basis between the Isle of Man and ourselves. The old basis was £10,000 a year and nothing else. We fixed the rate subject to the right of the Lieutenant-Governor of the island to make variations in special circumstances.
The Financial Secretary will, of course, recollect that the matter was raised shortly after the First World War when it was said that £10,000 was wholly inadequate and bore no relation whatever either to the defence position or to the cost of collection, or anything else. It was pointed out that the rate of taxation imposed by the islanders themselves was so much lower than the rate in this country, and there was a great scandal—

The Chairman: I really cannot see how this links up with this Clause which deals with hydrocarbon oils.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, Sir Charles, my hon. Friend's argument is addressed to the point that possibly this duty is nothing like sufficient. What one has to consider is what is the object of imposing this particular duty. Until we know for what purpose the money is re-

quired, it is surely impossible for us to judge whether the duty on hydrocarbon oils is or is not sufficient. As I understood it, my hon. Friend's argument is addressed to that point.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: There was one further point which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) made when your predecessor, Sir Charles, was in the Chair. I take it that most of his argument is based on what he then said which was that the Isle of Man is a very small island, that from any centre in it one cannot go more than 10 miles in any one direction, and that therefore this appears to be a gross imposition because the island is so small that people on it cannot go very far even if they have a motor car.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and hon. and learned Friend who, quite accurately, represented the two points which I was addressing to the Chair.
What I am now talking about is what is going to happen to the money we are collecting. Who gets it? In what proportions, when, how and to what purpose? I have been trying to put this unusual picture, and I do not want to detain the Committee long, but apparently the position is that an agreement was reached in 1949, may be by Treasury letter, I do not know, which altered the whole basis of taxation so far as Customs were concerned, and oil is a big item in these accounts, so that instead of the old arrangement under which the Tynwald made a contribution of £10,000 to the revenue of Great Britain they were going to make a payment of 5 per cent. of the net product of—

The Chairman: That is the point I was making. The hon. Gentleman is going far beyond the Clause which deals with hydrocarbon oils.

Mr. Hale: I am in great difficulty here. May I address to you the points which. I think are points of great substance, Sir Charles? The House does not know, nor is there any information available in the Library whether any agreement has been reached or not. I would, I would submit, be in order in saying that this Clause should not be passed until we have the information.


Secondly, we have not the figures showing what revenue has been raised from oil and how it is to be applied. Thirdly, we do not know what proportion goes back to the island until we know whether the Tynwald has ratified the Treasury letter. Fourthly, under a recent arrangement the accounts are postponed, so that when we discuss this Bill in July, as we normally do, we are discussing it in the face of figures relating to March of the previous year.
These are, I submit, substantial points. I understand the Treasury arrangement of 1949 was that, instead of a capital payment of £10,000 the Isle of Man should, with the approval of the Tynwald make a payment of 5 per cent. of the net revenue of the common Customs purse, which would come from Clause 1 of this Bill as well as other Clauses, and that is the revenue we collect in respect of Customs on the Isle of Man based on a notional figure of population, which takes into account a notional figure of visitors. The figure is about 600,000 for visitors and 38,000 for the population. I have not been able to find the fiscal figure at the moment, but—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is trying my patience. If he persists in going wide of the Clause, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Hale: I cannot argue with the Chair, but may I put my questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? I will await his answers and decide then whether they need elucidation. Before we impose this duty on oil going to the Isle of Man can he tell us whether the Tynwald has ratified the arrangement with the Treasury? Can he tell us now? Or does he not know?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I shall make my speech in my own way as the hon. Gentleman is making his.

Mr. Hale: I am not making my own speech in my own way.
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why it is not possible for the accounts up to 31st March in the current year to be available when the Bill passes in July? If it is not possible will he postpone the passing of the Bill in future? What is the estimated revenue which will come if the Tynwald ratifies the arrangements

to pay a 5 per cent. of the revenue from the common pool? What is the estimated taxation levied in the Isle of Man if they bore the same rates as British citizens?
The fifth point which arises incidentally is: has there been any discussion on this question of Income Tax evasion by people leaving this country and living in the Isle of Man? That does not arise on Clause 1, but it seems to me that it would be convenient to the Committee if the Financial Secretary would answer those points, of which, I observe, he has not taken a note at all.
1.15 a.m.
Now I come to the second of my major points. It seems to me that there are two points of view to put in connection with this Clause. We have to consider whether the taxation is too high or too low. It seems to me that if the County of Rutland were entirely surrounded by sea, there would be powerful representations in Parliament to the effect that they were in a different position so far as motor, petrol and oil taxation was concerned, from that of the mainland of Great Britain. Although I appreciate that differential steps have not been taken in respect of other islands, it seems to me that it is appropriate to consider whether we are being entirely fair in this matter.
I know it can be said that taxation in the island is too low, but it can equally be said, as far as this tax is concerned, that when we are considering the general principle appertaining to a small island we ought seriously to consider whether it is not necessary to make special provision for petrol and motor taxation. Of course, we are not responsible for motor taxation in the Isle of Man; we are only responsible for petrol taxation. I would like the Financial Secretary to consider this matter.
I understand that this figure, as far as Clause 1 is concerned, has been agreed with the Tynwald, and if it has, it goes a long way towards satisfying my doubts on this Clause. But here again there is no record of this in the Library, so far as I can trace, and we ought to have the relevant documents available to us so that we can give more careful study to this Bill than appears to have been given during the last 17 or 18 years.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall endeavour to deal with the number of points which have been raised, occasionally rather antiphonously, on this Clause.
The first point that was raised related to the accounts, their date of submission and their effect on the date of this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) rightly said that this was not a party matter. That is perhaps particularly applicable to this question. Up till last year the accounts were required by statute to be submitted before 30th June. I understand that in practice, submission in dummy was treated as adequate compliance for a good many years. Consequently, on last year's Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) raised the question whether submission in dummy was not a somewhat farcical procedure and whether the matter could not be better dealt with by altering the submission of the accounts to a date which was more practical.
That argument weighed with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) who introduced an Amendment which is now the present law, and is to be found in Section 6 of the Isle of Man Customs Act, 1951, under which the accounts have only to be submitted by 31st December; that is to say, the accounts for the year 1951–52 have, by statute, to be submitted by 31st December, 1952. That means inevitably—and no doubt, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, appreciated it when he introduced the Amendment—that the Bill has to be before the House substantially before the accounts are submitted.
The duties imposed by the Act of last year, or a number of them, will lapse on 1st August. It is consequently necessary, if the duties are not to lapse and the whole revenues of the island to be endangered, that this Bill should not only be introduced but passed into law by the end of this month. Therefore, however disadvantageous hon. Members may find the interaction of the dates of the Bill and of the accounts, that is the existing situation which we have found; and unless the Committee are prepared, which I am sure they are not, to disorganise the whole financial administration of the island, it is essential that the Bill should be dealt with before the accounts are pre-

sented on the dates for which the late Administration were responsible.
Then the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) asked whether this Clause, which alone we are discussing at the moment, was founded on resolutions of the Tynwald. Three Resolutions of Tynwald were carried which have the effect of placing the duties upon these oils in the island on the same level as those at present ruling in the United Kingdom. In point of fact, the Isle of Man, being a progressive place, had the provisional collection of taxes for many years before this country. These resolutions imposed by Tynwald require to be enacted by an Act of the Imperial Parliament.
Both hon. Members raised a number of questions as to the precise merits of the proposals embodied in the Tynwald Resolutions and now in this Bill. It has been the practice for a good many years for this Committee and for the House to take the view that in these matters their ultimate legal authority rests undoubtedly in this House to deal with this matter on the basis that the Tynwald, as representing the inhabitants of the island, should be free to regulate in accordance with its own judgment of the local needs of its people the level of taxation in the island.
Undoubtedly since, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said, 1765 this House has enjoyed the right to disregard the views of Tynwald and to impose its own views. That is the legal position. For many years the political position has been that proper regard, full regard, has been paid to the wishes of Tynwald, and I am perfectly certain that the Committee would not readily depart from that long-standing practice. Indeed, I understand the only basis on which for many years—

Mr. W. Nally: I have been listening with attention to what the Financial Secretary is saying. I would ask you, Sir Charles, whether you would consider, in view of the grounds upon which immediately before the Financial Secretary rose, you quite properly, as you were perfectly entitled to do, drew his attention to the extent he was getting out of order, how far for at least four minutes the Financial Secretary has been pursuing a line of argument which was in the mind of the hon. Member for Oldham, West


(Mr. Hale) and which you thought was not appropriate to this Clause. Might I ask you whether you consider the present most informative general argument being developed by the Financial Secretary ought not to incur your displeasure rather more severely than the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Oldham, West?

The Chairman: I did my best, unsuccessfully, to try to keep the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in what I considered to be order. I think that a reply is only reasonable.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I have incurred your displeasure I regret it, Sir Charles. What I was endeavouring to do—and what with your permission I shall endeavour to do—is to answer questions which were put to me and which, if put, I must assume to have been within the rules of order. If I have transgressed—and this discussion has gone rather wide—I apologise, and I will certainly take the warning which the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) was good enough to address to me. I will be careful not to err further.
I think I may be allowed to say one thing on the general background. Reference was made again and again—the reference to this Clause was perhaps a trifle tenuous—to negotiations which began some years ago. The position is that these discussions are still proceeding, and it would be highly inconvenient if I entered into any expressions of opinion on the precise relationship of financial matters between the island and the United Kingdom. Some delicate negotiations, with a long background of recognition of the rights of the island, have been proceeding, and it is not very easy to go into details on the objectives for which one is striving.

Mr. Hale: If my memory serves me rightly, the accounts for last year stated that agreement had been come to between the Treasury and the Isle of Man, which was awaiting ratification by Tynwald. What has happened since? Why, on an agreement of December, 1949, is it that delicate negotiations are still proceeding?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There have been elections, with fortunate results, in both the island and the United Kingdom, but

unfortunate in that they have held up negotiations. I am sorry if I did not gratify the hon. Gentleman's feelings by taking notes simultaneous with his observations, but, in any event, I should not be within the bounds of order if I strayed into matters relevant to Income Tax. I must proceed on the basis that all matters relating to Income Tax are clearly outside the discussion now before the Committee. We are here concerned with Customs, and Customs have nothing at all to do with Income Tax.

Mr. Hale: I think we are talking of two different things. There appears to be a genuine misunderstanding. I thought that the Financial Secretary's references were a continuation of the discussions originated in the Treasury Minute of December, 1949, concerned with the granting of 5 per cent. instead of the old sum of £10,000: there is a very big difference.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I pursue that aspect I shall be quite out of order.
So far as we are concerned with Income Tax matters—and whether they have anything to do with this Clause or not, the hon. Member twice referred to them—I have nothing more to say. So far as Customs are concerned, I have indicated what the position is: and even if in order, it would be extraordinarily difficult and inappropriate for me to go into the much wider field of the general financial relationship between the island and this country.
The Tynwald has passed three resolutions, the effect of which is to adjust the level of taxation on motor spirit, and similar fuels, to the same levels operating in the United Kingdom. The sole issue in this Clause is whether this Committee is agreed to that resolution of the Tynwald that taxation in the island on these particular commodities should be at the same level as in the United Kingdom. That is a very straightforward issue, but one which, I fear, has become a little befogged by some interesting, and historical, although perhaps, irrelevant observations.
1.30 a.m.
It is undoubtedly the fact that the practice for a very considerable time has been that where there is no clear damage to United Kingdom interests the wishes of the Tynwald with respect to Isle of Man


taxation should be confirmed, and whereas in this case the Isle of Man is seeking to bring itself into line with the taxation ruling in the United Kingdom—a manifestly convenient procedure from the point of view both of the Island and the United Kingdom—it is clear that the right thing to do is what the Tynwald wants, that is to say, to put this Clause into the Bill and place the taxation of the island in relation to these fuels into the same position as that of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nally: I shall be quite brief. As the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) has said, this is not a party matter. So little is it a party matter that we are completely prepared to accept the view of the Financial Secretary that it becomes a question whether or not the Committee is prepared to accept the view that the Tynwald embodied in three resolutions on the particular subject of hydrocarbon oils. But assuming that to be so I do not think the Committee would be unreasonable in asking to know precisely what were the terms of the three resolutions; in what form they were passed; what are their implications; and what is the procedure under which the three resolutions become operative in relation to the Isle of Man?
That last question has been explained. They become operative in due course after the House has confirmed them; but what exactly are we confirming? I do not know what the resolutions are. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has simply told us, without an exact date being given, that the Tynwald have passed three resolutions, about the contents of which he has not troubled to inform us. Although I have the highest regard for him that is not sufficient for me, as a Member of the House of Commons.
He has not troubled to inform us of the contents of those resolutions; he has not troubled to explain their implications —because, I suspect, he is not quite certain himself—and we are then asked to approve this Clause. At this hour of the morning you, Sir Charles, have quite properly asked us to do our best to expedite business; but we are simply told that three resolutions of an unspecified date and of an unspecified content have been passed and that by the precedent

of the whole history of this matter we ought to pass them.
That may well be so, but as far as I know there is no precedent under this or any other Government which lays it down that Members of the Opposition shall simply accept the authority of the Financial Secretary that three resolutions have been passed, all of which are to the glory of Clause 1, without being given any indication of what is embodied in those three resolutions. Why are there three resolutions? Why was there not only one? I should like to know, and the Financial Secretary ought to be able to explain why it is that we should accept Clause 1 on the basis of precedent. As a matter of courtesy he should give us the content of some of these resolutions.
There are the technical difficulties to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) drew attention. The Isle of Man has a very special place in relation to hydrocarbon oils. There is a little matter of the T.T. races. For a good many years it has been assumed—not only in relation to four-wheeled vehicles, but to other vehicles—that the Isle of Man consumes a slightly higher quantity of all sorts of things at different times of the year because of the T.T. races for which it is famous. It becomes, during the holiday season, a rendezvous.

The Chairman: There was a little annoyance, because I would not allow the discussion to go too wide, but if the hon. Member is going to discuss the T.T. races there will be no end to it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move,

"That the Question be now put."

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. If I may say so with respect, Sir Charles, this is an unusual procedure. You rightly rose and drew my attention to the fact that you considered that I was out of order. It has happened on only one occasion since 1945 that an occupant of the Chair, without giving the hon. Member who had the Floor an opportunity to put himself in order, has proceeded to put the Question. I would ask whether it is to be assumed that I am to accept as proper your Ruling that, without giving


me an opportunity to put myself in order and continuing my speech, you are entitled to put the Question.

The Chairman: Yes. The Closure can be moved during a speech.

Mr. Nally: Am I to understand that the Closure was moved?

The Chairman: Yes.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. DREWE and Mr. K. THOMPSON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

Clause 2.—(WITHDRAWAL OF REBATE ON HEAVY OILS USED FOR ROAD TRANSPORT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Michael Foot: Despite the opinion that seems to prevail in some parts of the Committee that the purpose of presenting this Bill to the House of Commons is so that it shall not be discussed and examined, it is right that we should scrutinise the Measure and examine it Clause by Clause.
That is the purpose of the Committee stage. We do not expect such a point to be understood by the Patronage Secretary, but we do expect it to be understood by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who probably has a better respect for the rights and traditions of the House of Commons. Indeed, in fairness to him I ought to point out that in his reply to the debate on Clause 1 he did make an effort to deal with the points which had been raised by my hon. Friends, even though he was probably a party to the manoeuvre which prevented other points from being raised, which, in my view, might have been discussed on that Clause.
Happily, as no doubt you, Sir Charles, yourself foresaw when you accepted the Motion for the Closure, several of the same issues arise on Clause 2 as were involved on Clause 1. Therefore, the Committee need not be deprived of the rights of which the Patronage Secretary

intended to deprive us when he moved the Closure in the unseemly fashion which has now become characteristic of him.
The subsection of this Clause to which I wish to refer is subsection (4). I may say that this matter is one which I would have raised on Second Reading. Indeed, many of my hon. Friends, if they had wished to delay the passage of this Measure into law, would have raised these points on Second Reading and we should then have had a full debate on these matters. But I think it was considered by many of my hon. Friends—and it was certainly considered by mysel—that some of these points were more appropriate to be raised in the Committee stage, which is why we are raising them now.
It would, however, be a most unfortunate precedent if it were considered that because hon. Members on this side of the Committee were agreeable to letting the Government have business go through speedily on Second Reading that, therefore, we were to be denied the rights of discussion on the Committee stage. This is a point which could perfectly well have been discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill but which, of course, is more specifically relevant to the subsection of the Clause which is before the Committee at present.
Subsection (4) of Clause 2 says:
As from the eighth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-two,
and goes on to list the provisions which shall result as from that day if this Bill is passed into effect. Of course, there can be no objection to a Measure coming before this Committee on 22nd July—or 23rd July as it now is—proposing that if the Measure goes through all its stages with sufficient speed it shall come into operation on 8th August. It does not leave very much time for another place, but that is the custom with the various Measures going through Parliament at the present time.
Therefore, it merely fits the normal pattern of legislation which is being provided by Her Majesty's Government in these circumstances—

Mr. I. Mikardo: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point—

Mr. Foot: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is anticipating the point I am going to make. The point on which


I wish to have a reply from the Financial Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Certainly; I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mikardo: If I am merely anticipating the point my hon. Friend is going to make, I apologise. I understood him to be arguing that in this Clause we were leaving the other place very little time to consider matters because we were tying them to 8th August. If my hon. Friend will look back to subsection (6) of Clause 1—

Mr. Foot: That is where I was going to look.

Mr. Mikardo: —he will see that we have left them less time still, because they will have to finish their deliberations by "the eighteenth day of June," which was five weeks ago, which means they will have to move in Einstein-like fashion.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I call attention to another matter? This is retrospective legislation with a vengeance. To get it from a party that objected so strongly to retrospective legislation is astonishing.

Mr. Foot: That is the point I was proposing to make. I do not complain about my hon. Friends' interruptions, because I realise that the only way in which we can make speeches at this stage, in view of the interventions of the Patronage Secretary, is to interrupt speeches. Otherwise, under the Government's new constitutional practice, it might not be possible to take part in the discussion at all.
We should like to know from the Financial Secretary why, in the Clause under discussion, we find the date is 8th August, whereas in subsection (6) of the previous Clause there is a reference to 18th June. This Bill reeks of retrospective legislation, and it is retrospective legislation applying to a whole list of unnamed and unknown persons. When we had retrospective legislation applying to Mr. Black there were long debates in the House. We were told it was an outrage to the Constitution—a most shocking thing; but, of course, there was no Closure then.
It was a perfectly legitimate argument for the Opposition to raise at that time, but here is a whole list of persons who

have been presumably carrying oil to the Isle of Man. They are going to be subjected to this duty; indeed, they have already been subjected to it, according to the nonsensical reading of this Bill, since 18th June. No one knows whether they have been subjected to it or not; and if this Bill does not go through they have been subjected to it wrongly.
The Bill may not go through in the form in which it is presented to the House. Or was there an agreement between the Government and the authorities in the Isle of Man that it would go through exactly in the form in which it was presented? If so, it provides a more charitable explanation why the Patronage Secretary is so fiercely applying the Closure. That explanation would be much less discreditable to the Government than the matter of the Bill we were discussing yesterday.
I hope that the Government will not have any fear in owning up to such an arrangement with the Isle of Man, if it is the case. Did the Government say to the authorities in the Isle of Man, "You need not worry about the House of Commons. We know you have had plenty of time and have had three resolutions, even though the Financial Secretary is not able to reveal what was discussed. Do not worry—we have our own methods of getting these things through, and if by any mischance we find there is going to be any lengthy discussion we will have a Guillotine for you. We shall not treat you any less fairly than we treated the brewers. We shall not let you down. We are the Government that gets things through."
But what if they should raise the question of the Transport Bill?

Mr. George Wigg: There is one qualification. If the Government get the Bill through it must be on the sole condition that it is not mentioned in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Foot: I took the precaution not merely of examining the King's Speech—I could not find it there—but also of examining the Tory Party's Election manifesto.

The Chairman: I would most respectfully ask the hon. Member to confine himself to this Clause. He has been speaking for 10 minutes and has hardly touched on it.

Mr. Foot: With great respect [Interruption.]

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Financial Secretary to make an offensive interruption of that kind? He is naturally offensive, we know, but at least he might have the courtesy to get on to his feet.

The Chairman: I did not hear any offensive observation.

Mr. Foot: With respect, Sir Charles, I have referred to this Clause and the matter which is before the Committee for debate. I am inquiring whether there has been any agreement with the authorities in the Isle of Man that this Bill shall go through precisely in the form in which it was offered to the House of Commons. The reason I ask is because of this date in the Clause which we are now discussing—8th August—which is only a few days away.
If, indeed, it is a fact that this is the date on which this Clause is to come into operation then it does not leave very much time either for the House of Commons or another place to discuss this Measure. My argument about this part of this Clause is reinforced by the even stronger argument which applied in the case of Clause 1 (6). If we take the two subsections together, I contend that it indicates the possibility that there may have been an agreement between the Government and the authorities in the Isle of Man. Indeed, that was the sense of the speech made by the Financial Secretary in reply to the debate on Clause 1.
We should like to know what is the nature of the agreement and whether, in fact, it is possible for the Government to have a series of Amendments passed to this Measure. If they have such an agreement with the authorities in the Isle of Man then, at least, the Government should have had the decency to disclose that fact on the Second Reading of this Bill. That might have saved a lot of trouble in the Committee stage.
This state of affairs makes hon. Members all the more determined to examine such Measures as this with care, especially when they discover the kind of manoeuvres that the Government resort to on the very first Clause discussed in the Committee. It is becoming such a

familiar procedure. It is true that the Patronage Secretary was only just a few minutes behind the Home Secretary in the Committee which we discussed during the debate yesterday. This is becoming much too familiar a process. The more eager the Government are to move the Closure on such Bills as this—

The Chairman: I hope that that is not a reflection on the Chair. If I accept the Closure I think that it is entitled to be accepted.

Mr. Foot: I was not reflecting on your acceptance of the Closure, Sir Charles. If I wished to reflect on the way in which you or Mr. Speaker accept the Closure I should put down a Motion on the Order Paper, which I did on a previous occasion when I believed that the Speaker of the House had been wrongfully accepting the Closure. I should have thought that I was perfectly entitled to criticise the manner in which the Patronage Secretary, who takes the initiative in these matters, has sought to limit discussion. Presumably the Government know the purpose of the Bill. It is not for the Chair to know what is the purpose behind a Bill.
Therefore, when the Government seek at such an early stage to obtain the Closure I believe that it is justifiable for hon. Members to say that there may be some intention behind the eagerness of the Government. It is not any reflection on the Chair, but is an accusation against the Government for the way in which they are using the machinery of the House.
I hope that we shall have clear answers from the Financial Secretary on this point. Will he tell us whether there has been such a backstairs agreement with the authorities in the Isle of Man, and will he explain why there is reference to 8th August in subsection (4) of this Clause and to 18th June in the previous Clause, and how he defends the introduction of such retrospective legislation as this without even attempting to give any explanation of it to the House on Second Reading?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The effect of this Clause, which, as the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) quite accurately says, has certain similarities to the previous one, is simply to withdraw the rebates on heavy diesel oils used by road


vehicles. The effect, of course, is to subject diesel oil so used to tax and, there, fore, to put the position with respect to such oils used in the island on the same basis as oil so used in the United Kingdom. It is founded, as was the previous one, on a resolution of Tynwald and seeks as did the previous one to carry out the wishes of the Tynwald in this respect. That is its effect.
I want to deal with two further issues raised by the hon. Member for Devon-port. First, he asked whether there was an agreement, presumably with the Isle of Man Government. I ventured to explain—indeed, I think I was on the verge of incurring your displeasure, Sir Charles, in so doing—the position which has arisen on this Bill as it has on this annual Measure for a great many years. That is to say, the Tynwald passes its resolution expressing its wishes, and unless some very good reason affecting the United Kingdom prevents it, it has been considered for many years the proper function of this Government to present this Measure in the form of a Bill to this House. In no other sense than carrying into effect the well understood constitutional practice is there any sort of agreement such as the hon. Member for Devonport appears to have in mind.
The extraordinary thing was the intervention of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). He described this Bill as retrospective legislation. I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Devonport when I said I did not think he understood how these matters were handled, but the right hon. Member for Colne Valley must know, because he has handled several of these Bills. He knows perfectly well that there is no element of retrospection here at all.
The hon. Member for Devonport referred to the fact that in Clause 1 18th June is mentioned. That is mentioned because it is the day subsequent to 17th June on which the Tynwald resolution was passed. That resolution comes into effect in precisely the same way as the Budget Resolutions in this country come into effect. Therefore, this Measure subsequently validated the Tynwald resolution in exactly the same way as our own Finance Bill subsequently validates the Budget Resolutions, and is no more

retrospective than is our own Finance Bill carried through every year in this country.
The hon. Member for Devonport asked why 8th August was inserted in the Clause we are discussing as compared with 18th June to which he and I referred on Clause 1. The Tynwald would have been within its rights in embodying within its resolution that Clause 2 should come into effect on 18th June had it so wished. In fact, it requested that the date be 8th August because hon. Members will easily see that the withdrawal of these rebates involves the administrative aspect and imposes heavy duties on dealers in diesel oils. Therefore, it was thought right by Tynwald that some time should elapse between 17th June, when the Tynwald resolution was passed, and 8th August during which dealers in these oils could make the necessary arrangements. That is the reason for the difference in the dates. It is a practical and administrative reason and I can assure the Committee that there is no element of retrospection in this Bill any more than there is in the Finance Bill and the Budget Resolution.

2.0 a.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
I am surprised that so much time is being taken up on the Clauses of this Bill. It seems to me to be perfectly clear that it is an absolute outrage for hon. Gentlemen opposite, at this hour of the night, to carry on in this way.

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman brought the Bill on at a late hour.

Mr. Crookshank: It was not we who brought it on, because we facilitated business for the Opposition earlier. It was a Supply Day, and they unexpectedly asked for a Motion to be taken, and the Government agreed to that procedure.
It was part of the intention that this Bill should be reasonably debated, but not at great length, and certainly not at this hour of the morning. This is a formal Bill, it normally follows the Finance Bill; there is nothing unusual about it, and I do not see any reason why the Committee should be incommoded at this hour, and made to sit longer to allow hon. Gentlemen opposite


to make considerable speeches on matters which they know are purely formal. In proposing to report Progress, therefore, and suggesting that this Bill should be put down on another day for its remaining stages, I would point out that we are getting near to the end of the Session, and if hon. Gentlemen do want to sit over the Bank Holiday and on the Bank Holiday—

Mr. Manuel: Why not?

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman asks why not? I should be surprised if other hon. Gentlemen who are not present, and who sit on those benches, particularly on the Front Bench, would be anxious to sit over the Bank Holiday. We are anxious to avoid that inconvenience not only to hon. Gentlemen, but to all those who would be involved—members of the Civil Service, who have to be in attendance when the House sits, messengers, members of the staff, the police and others.

Mr. Manuel: It is because of the muddle the right hon. Gentleman has got into.

Mr. Crookshank: There is no muddle at all.

Mr. Mikardo: Stop threatening us.

Mr. Crookshank: I am not threatening anybody. We might as well report Progress now, as it is past 2 o'clock, and resume discussion another day. I hope that, on further reflection, hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have spent all this time on this purely formal Bill, will reconsider the wisdom of their actions. The consequences of what they are doing will undoubtedly be to prolong the Session unduly before the holiday, and deprive many hon. Gentlemen, the staff of the House and everybody else, of a Bank Holiday to which they are looking forward.
In moving to report Progress I propose that we should resume discussion oh the Bill at a later date, but I hope there will be no late Sittings after today and that we may get through our business, which is what we all want. That is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who, I presume, is in charge—

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede (South Shields) indicated dissent.

Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has abdicated his responsibility. I do not know who is in charge. Presumably, someone is in charge of the Opposition, and as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) shakes his head, I do not know who is. Perhaps it is the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who has been promoted to this honorary position.

Mr. Spencer Summers: Is it not an outmoded assumption that anybody is in charge of the benches opposite?

Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry that I am so old-fashioned. I hope, Sir Charles, that you will accept this Motion, that the Committee will report Progress, that we may now cease this discussion and get on to such other business as is required. But I do point out once again that I and my hon. Friends consider—

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The right hon. Gentleman is repeating himself.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: He has lost his temper.

Mr. Crookshank: No; when I lose my temper the hon. Gentleman will know it quite well. This does not happen to be one of those occasions. But there are certain Parliamentary arrangements which are made, and I do not see why a handful of Opposition Members should break them and treat the Committee in this way.

Mr. Mikardo: I beg to second the Motion.
Perhaps, Sir Charles, you will allow me to make one or two observations. In the first place, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should describe this as purely a formal Bill. We have heard that it has been the custom for some time for the accounts to be submitted in dummy form, and that last year an hon. Member opposite took objection to this procedure, as a result of which somt changes were made. The relation between the dates of the accounts and the dates of this Bill—a whole series of different dates—is a very germane matter.
I will not pursue that point now, but I hope at a later stage to pursue it when


we reach Clause 3 and when we reach an Amendment in my name on Clause 4. I make the point now only for the purpose of adducing that one piece of evidence, and I can adduce much more to controvert the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this is no more than a formal Measure.
The second thing I wish to say is that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in holding the Oposition responsible for the late hour at which we are sitting. It was he and not we who decided that this Committee stage should start at 10 o'clock, and when he said that that was only because he was seeking to accommodate the Opposition, he was not being fair to the Committee and he was not up to his usual standard of cogency in argument.
The fact that the right hon. Gentleman agreed to business before 10 o'clock being taken on a Motion instead of as a Supply Day makes no difference to the fact that 10 o'clock is 10 o'clock, and whether it was a Supply Day or taken on a Motion, the business would still have finished at 10 o'clock. Whether it was a Motion or whether it was a Supply Day, the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that when he put this business on after the transport debate it certainly could not have been taken until well after 10 o'clock, especially as he had to take one of the stages of the Civil List Bill as well.
I hope I may make this last point without being in the least offensive; I certainly have no wish to be offensive. On occasions like this we rely on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to provide all the offence. I would be the last to be offensive to the right hon. Gentleman or to anyone else, but I beg him to stop this schoolboy practice of throwing out threats to the effect that, "If you little boys do not behave yourselves you will not be allowed to go home at the end of term for your holidays." He is not talking to schoolboys and he does not frighten anybody. He is not putting a halo round his head when he pretends to be the only person who has any consideration for Civil Servants and officers of the House. We all equally have that same consideration—does the hon. Gentleman want to say something—

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: A dozen Members on the Labour side of the House have no consideration for the staff of the House.

Mr. Mikardo: I have a shrewd suspicion that the hon. Gentleman's indignation is not motivated by any feeling for the convenience of the staff, but by the fact that he himself wants to get home. So long as that is so I pay little attention to his observations, especially as this is the first occasion during the debate on which he has inconvenienced himself by coming into it.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is quite untrue.

Mr. Mikardo: If he says he has been here for some time I withdraw and deeply regret that his contribution to the work of the Committee has been such that I have not noticed it.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The hon. Member may have been asleep most of the time.

Mr. Mikardo: If I may resume, I must recapitulate in order that the Committee may take up the thread of my argument again. I am sorry it is necessary. It will involve loss of time. But the hon. Member is responsible.
I was saying that it really wil1 not do for the right hon. Gentleman to threaten us as schoolboys looking forward to the end of term or to pretend that he is the only person with concern for the servants of the House if one takes his argument to its logical conclusion, if one says, "Here are a dozen Labour Members keeping the staff of the House," I have no doubt that the staff of the House would like to get home at six o'clock in the evening and go to the pictures. If one were to follow out the right hon. Gentleman's argument we would knock off at six o'clock every day.
But we have our duties as well as the need for consideration for other folk. We all have a sense of our responsibility for not unnecessarily inconveniencing any servants of the Government or the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] Does the hon. Gentleman want to say something? If he does not perhaps he knows that the rules of the House are that he should remain silent as long as he is sitting on his seat. I fear that I shall have to recapitulate again because, otherwise, the Committee will lose the thread of what I


am saying. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to threaten us or to pretend he is the only one conscious of the inconvenience that may be caused.
We all have a duty and our duty must come first; and if it is necessary, in the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman, to complete proper consideration of the Government's business, to sit over the Bank Holiday I want to say that I for one will accept his judgment without any question or reservation at all. There are not many matters on which I would accept his judgment, but this is one of them. If he says the choice before him is either letting important Measures go through without proper examination or sitting here a day or two or a week or two longer I shall have no difficulty in making my choice.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman in spite of the very feeble arguments with which he moved it.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman, in moving this Motion, made some observations about myself. I am always here while the House is sitting, and probably spend as much time in this Chamber as any other hon. Member. I like listening to hon. Members on both sides, and endeavour to find, thereby, a line of argument which will give me some intellectual exercise. But the right hon. Gentleman did make some observations to which I think it is desirable that I should make reply; because they do not accord with my recollection of recent Parliamentary history.
On the last Parliamentary day—that is, the day before yesterday, by the sun—the right hon. Gentleman announced that there had been a change in business in that Her Majesty's Opposition had asked that Supply should be taken formally in order that the Government might move a Motion on the transport debate, originally announced as the business for Supply. It was last Thursday that the Leader of the House announced that the Committee stage of this Bill would be taken tonight; and, so far as I know, without having any part in the usual channels these days, I do not think that an arrangement for the taking of a Motion formally, rather than having it taken in the Committee of Supply, had anything to do

with the position of this Bill on the Order Paper.
I say that because his words might have been taken to imply that there was some arrangement in the matter. If there was, I know nothing about it; and I should be very surprised to learn that the taking of Supply formally, and then having a Motion, was the basis for any arrangement at all, apart from that which I have mentioned. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was Opposition time, and the Opposition had agreed to do the thing this way.
I merely say this because I know how difficult it is for those considering matters through the usual channels to get their arrangements carried out after they have been made. I sat over on the other side, and the present Leader of the House, and the present Patronage Secretary were over here, and sometimes had to get back benchers to agree to arrangements which had been made.
Like the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), I support the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has moved; and I assure him that, if there should be any trouble on the back benches about getting it through, such forces as we have here this morning are at his disposal in getting it carried. It has always been the custom since I have been a Member of the House for it to be assumed that a Motion to report Progress—which is generally a dilatory Motion; it is included among the dilatory Motions—is allowed to run for at least an hour before the Closure is accepted.

Mr. Crookshank: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it can be a dilatory Motion when I moved it and he says he agrees with it. That is the end of it, surely. What is dilatory about it?

Mr. Ede: Arrangements made between the two Front Benches are quite frequently suspect by the back benches on both sides and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman not to get both of us into difficulties by making the back benches feel that there is some collusion.
I compare the statements made by hon. Members opposite tonight with what they were saying about 16 months ago. Did the right hon. Gentleman then, when he was assisting the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) in his campaign, think


of the civil servants and the servants of the House? Not a bit. I hope that the Motion submitted by the right hon. Gentleman will be carried. I want to assure him that as far as I know there is no breach of any agreement that has been made. I am quite certain that there was no bargain about getting a Motion instead of having the ordinary Committee of Supply business on Tuesday.

Mr. Bing: I wish to join hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal. We all feel that he has done perfectly right in seeing that rather more time is to be given—at a possibly more convenient hour—to discuss the affairs of the Isle of Man. I think that we all sympathise with the Isle of Man for being the first victim of the brewers. It is, indeed, peculiar that the Isle of Man, where the beer duty is lower than anywhere else, should have had the discussion of its affairs sacrificed by the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to devote all yesterday to forcing through brewers' legislation.
The Government, who approached this House because they considered it was desirable to examine the resolutions of the Tynwald, must not treat the Tynwald as though it were the Brewers' Society, whose views must be pushed through the House without any discussion whatsoever.

The Chairman: I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that on the Motion to report Progress the discussion must be confined to the reason for or against reporting Progress and not the legislation which we have recently been considering.

Mr. Bing: Exactly. I was replying in precise terms to the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal, who said that this was a purely formal Bill and should be allowed to go through, and that some offence had been committed by this side of the Committee because hon. Members had dared to debate a Measure put before them by the Government. That is a most extraordinary theory which I thought applied only to Measures which had received the imprimatur of the Brewers' Society—and the Tynwald is not yet in that position. That was the argument which I was addressing to the right hon. Gentleman.
Surely it is the duty of hon. Members to look at Measures which are submitted to them and to decide, in regard to any particular matters—and with you in the Chair, Sir Charles, we are quite certain that if anybody strays from the path of order he will be called sharply to his duty—what should be done about them. Surely it is very wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to come forward now and say that there has been an offence committed because hon. Members have dared to discuss Clauses which you have seen fit, in normal practice, to put before the House?
Speaking for myself, and for hon. Members on this side of the Committee, I hope I may say that if it is necessary to discuss the business of the House on any day, at any time, we are prepared to put our Parliamentary duties before holidays. We are not the least concerned to have six weeks' Recess in which to think about things. We appreciate that the Government has wasted so much time that it may be necessary to sit throughout August.
If it is necessary to sit on the Bank Holiday to pass this Measure, why should we have wasted yesterday discussing a Guillotine Motion? If the right hon. Gentleman has got his programme into such a muddle that he does not yet know on which day the House will rise he was premature in introducing the Guillotine on the basis that the House was going to rise, come what may, on Saturday. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that if he cannot get the Bill through we shall have to sit another week. If that is so, I think the people of the country will appreciate that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will look at every piece of legislation introduced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to see where it is leading.
Another point in favour of postponement is that we have not had the Isle of Man accounts. This might afford an opportunity to get them, or at least to have the resolution of the Tynwald put into the Library. We have had to take it from the right hon. Gentleman, that the resolution was passed. He has not had the courtesy to see that it was put into the Library, or to quote it. The latest record from the Tynwald which is in the Library concerns the time when the late Government of this country went


out of office. The fact that we have a Conservative Government seems to be no reason for cutting ourselves off from the Isle of Man.
If we have two or three days before this Bill is considered again, it ought to be possible to get into touch with the Isle of Man and arrange for the papers to be here, and even for us to have a forecast of the accounts. Then the Committee could proceed in a more rational way to discuss this Measure. I think I speak for hon. Members on both sides when I say that we welcome the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman. I only wish that his initiative was more often shown, and that he took a more commonsense view of other matters, as he has of this one. Also that he would realise that for us to attempt to discuss such matters as this without having the facts before us is not necessary. I hope that we on this side of the Committee will agree to support the right hon. Gentleman's Motion.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Personally, I do not dissent from the proposition which has been put to the Committee by the Leader of the House that we should report Progress, although, unlike my hon. Friends who have already spoken from these benches, I do not feel particularly enthusiastic about the Motion, because I have been sitting here a great many hours and I was hoping to catch your eye, Sir Charles, in order to make a few observations on Clause 3, which I think is by no means the least important Clause of this Bill.
Speaking for myself—and I have no doubt for a great many other hon. Members—it is not particularly convenient to have it announced one day last week that we were to consider the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill in Committee today, to sit here from 10 o'clock until 2.30 a.m. hoping to catch your eye on Clause 3, and then to find that when we were in the midst of a discussion on the Question that Clause 2 should stand part we have the Leader of the House moving his Motion to report Progress.
As I say, I do not think it is particularly convenient but I do not complain of that because, like a great many other hon. Members, I have by now got used to this kind of muddle and confusion in which the Government conduct their business.
Some of the reasons given by the Leader of the House for this proposition at this hour did seem to me extraordinary, and I think that it would be wrong for the Comittee to allow the reasons given by the Leader of the House to pass without a few words of comment and disapproval from these benches. May I first of all point out to you, Sir Charles, that in my limited experience here it is a novel matter for the Leader of the House to get up and move a Motion to report Progress immediately after a speech from the Government Front Bench.
I can understand the reason, because it was a most lamentable performance on the part of the Financial Secretary, and I can only assume, as I think all hon. Members will assume, that the Leader of the House was so—I was going to say disgusted, but that would be the wrong word—affronted, so—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Disappointed.

Mr. Fletcher: —so disappointed—

Mr. Nally: Outraged.

Mr. Fletcher: —so outraged—

Mr. Hale: Indignant.

Mr. Fletcher: —so indignant—

Mr. Nally: Nauseated.

Mr. Fletcher: —so nauseated—

Mr. Hale: Infuriated.

Mr. Fletcher: —so infuriated—

Mr. Hughes: Exasperated.

Mr. Fletcher: —so exasperated by the lamentable performance of his hon. Friend, by the complete confusion in which his hon. Friend threw the Committee, by his complete failure to explain to the Committee the significance of Clause 2, and by the complete misconstruction that was put upon the phrase in Clause 1 about 18th June and in Clause 2 of 8th August.
I think that the only justification for the Leader of the House proposing this Motion was that after the Financial Secretary had made that speech he had no other course to take. It would have been impossible, in my submission, for this Committee to have continued to discuss Clause 2 if that was the best performance we could have from the Government


Front Bench on Clause 2. I think that the Leader of the House had no other course to take. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman, like the Financial Secretary, is a great authority on retrospective legislation. We have had speeches from both of them over the last six years—

Mr. Nally: Long speeches.

Mr. Fletcher: Long speeches, elaborate speeches, eloquent speeches, repeated speeches—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Tedious speeches.

Mr. Fletcher: —tedious speeches, about the vices of retrospective legislation. If there is one subject on which in the last six years I have heard both the Leader of the House and the Financial Secretary wax eloquent it is on this subject of delegated legislation.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is my hon. Friend sure that he is using the right word when he terms those speeches eloquent?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to he put off, because I am addressing a serious argument to the Committee.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: You are doing nothing of the sort.

Mr. George Brown: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) say that you are doing nothing of the sort. Could I be told what it was you were doing, Sir Charles?

The Chairman: I do not know. I am getting rather bored.

Mr. Fletcher: Picking up the threads, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), that this is a dilatory Motion. Necessarily so, because the Leader of the House cannot help being dilatory, and it is essential that he should be dilatory in view of what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said. Here was the Financial Secretary, who, in the last Parliament, was the professed advocate against delegated legislation, trying to persuade the Committee that a Bill which, in Clause 2, said that—

The Chairman: I cannot see what this has to do with reporting Progress.

Mr. Fletcher: I am supporting the Motion to report Progress, Sir Charles.

The Chairman: Whether the hon. Gentleman is supporting it or not, he must come to the point.

Mr. Fletcher: I am supporting the Motion.

Mr. Herbert Butcher (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. Herbert Butcher (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 20.

Division No. 222.]
AYES
[2.35 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Crouch, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Ashton, H, (Chelmsford)
Deedes, W. F.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKibbin, A. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Banks, Col. C.
Fisher, Nigel
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Barlow, Sir John
Gage, C. H.
Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)


Baxter, A. B.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Markham, Major S. F.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mellor, Sir John


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heath, Edward
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bishop, F. P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Black, C. W.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Oakshott, H. D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hollis, M. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hope, Lord John
Osborne, C.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Partridge, E.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Horobin, I. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Channon, H.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pitman, I. J.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cole, Norman
Hurd, A. R.
Raikes, H. V.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Redmayne, M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, D.
Renton, D. L. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Russell, R. S.




Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Summers, G. S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Scott, R. Donald
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Tilney, John
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Snadden, W. McN.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Wills, G.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Vane, W. M. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire. W.)



Stevens, G. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Drewe.


Studholme, H. G.
White, Baker (Canterbury)





NOES


Bing, G. H. C.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Nally, W.


Blackburn, F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Thomas, (Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fernyhough, E.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)



Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderfield, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foot, M. M.
Manuel, A. C.
Mr. Popplewell and


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian
Mr. George Wigg.


Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Mr. G. Brown: On a point of order. Are we to understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the two agricultural Orders for which great urgency exists in the farming industry, as the Minister knows, are not to be dealt with tonight? The civil servants concerned have been kept here until 2.30 a.m. and the House is ready to deal with them, but the Patronage Secretary, in a fit of pique, is determined that they shall not be taken. Is there not some way in which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, can protect hon. Members and the farming industry against such scandalous treatment?
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Orders of the Day — CANCER TREATMENT (PUBLICITY)

2.48 a.m.

Brigadier F. Medlicott: The matter I wish to raise is one which I would normally raise with some diffidence at this late hour, but I think I can claim that it is at least as important as anything which has been discussed in this Chamber during the last five hours. It is the problem of greater publicity in the matter of cancer treatment and of urging members of the public who may be afflicted with this disease to seek early diagnosis and advice.
Perhaps the word "education" would be a better word than "publicity" because it would be quite out of place to

embark upon a spectacular campaign of publicity in the ordinary sense of that word. It is more a question of educating the public, and perhaps as much as anything a question of a change of attitude towards the whole problem of cancer.
There is little doubt about the gravity of this problem to the present generation. In many countries, at the beginning of the century, only one death out of every 20 was attributed to cancer. But over the last 50 years there has been a steady increase in the proportion of deaths caused by this disease, until, at the present time, the percentage has risen from one death in 20 to one death in seven, and in some countries it is as high as one death in six.
One of the most serious features of this increase is the fact that the largest percentage increase has occurred in cancer of the lung, and that form of the disease accounts in large measure for the very serious total increase which has taken place in the last half century.
In 1900 the number of persons who died from cancer in England and Wales was 26,000. Forty-seven years later it had increased to 80,000. If one includes Scotland, and takes the figures for Great Britain as a whole, deaths reached the alarming total of 90,000 per years. But the situation is not as bad as the figures might suggest at first glance, because in the early days of the century diagnosis was not as accurate as it is today, and an encouraging sign is that as a result of improved methods of surgery and the advances made in methods of healing people are cured of other afflictions and so reach an age when cancer is more likely to afflict them. Thus in 1948 out of 5,253 deaths in one area only 455


were of persons up to the age of 44, 3,159 were of persons between the ages of 45 and 64 and 1,639 were of people aged 65 and over. So that out of roughly 5,000 deaths 400 were of persons under 44, and 4,500 were of persons over that age.
Nevertheless, with such a serious rise in the incidence of deaths from cancer, however optimistically we may try to interpret the figures, it is clear that the policy of reticence about the disease needs to be reconsidered. There is not one of us, who has not with painful frequency heard of the death of some friend or acquaintance from this plague of the 20th century, this affliction which comes like a thief in the night.
There is still a great deal of secrecy which surrounds the question of cancer. People are reluctant to use the word: it has such an unhappy connotation, and this is in marked contrast to the normal reaction towards illness. There are many people, far too many, who are all too ready to talk about their operation, to the great discomfort of their friends and acquaintances, but there is no such willingness to talk about their operation if it has anything to do with cancer. This attitude of mind has not been counteracted by those in authority and only 18 months ago, the Central Health Services Council gave advice that it was undesirable for any general scheme of cancer publicity to be carried out by any central Government organisation.
There is also a widespread feeling that cancer is always fatal. There are millions of people who, when they hear that a person has cancer, regard it as equivalent to a sentence of death. If we can get away from the exaggerated feeling of apprehension, we may be doing positive good in more senses than one, and may be the means of saving thousands of lives. There is increasing evidence from doctors in general practice and from hospitals that reluctance to seek advice and consequently a delay in obtaining treatment is responsible for many deaths which otherwise could have been avoided.
I do not think it is yet generally realised what considerable progress there has been in the treatment of cancer in the last 50 years. In fact, such progress as has been made altogether has been mainly during that period, and we may now well be only

at the beginning of great further advances. Not only by surgical means, but by means of radiotherapy, by the medical use of isotopes and by chemo-therapy many types of cancer are curable if they are taken in time.
I hesitate to use the word "cure" because that might appear to be making too large a claim, but I would like to quote from the British Medical Journal for 12th July, which used these encouraging words:
The results of treatment in certain sites continue to show steady improvement. Surgery, not necessarily more bold than in the past, but rendered less hazardous by modern methods, and radiotherapy applied by machines of increasing power and complexity, together hold out more hope for the sufferer, sometimes of cure, often of considerable palliation.
The Medical Society of London recently collected over 200 cases of one particular kind of cancer in which the patients were alive more than 10 years after the operation. Furthermore, the Minister will be aware that the ex-Minister of Health, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman) on 8th February last year, said that some types of cancer can be treated with very great hopes of success if treatment is sought early.
The balance against more publicity in the matter of seeking advice for suspected cancer has probably so far been tilted by the medical profession itself which, no doubt, fears a great increase in neurosis or cancer apprehension. But, with respect, I think this is a mistaken view, for two reasons. In the first place, the medical profession, with great credit to itself, is probably still dissatisfied that so little is known about the basic cause of cancer, or, rather, the basis of its cure or prevention.
Because no comprehensive form of cure has yet been discovered, the doctors are perhaps unduly modest as to what has already been achieved. But I think we are entitled to remind ourselves and the medical profession that a great deal has, in fact, been achieved, and as a result of the efforts of surgeons and physicians of superb skill there are thousands of people who have got rid of malignant cancers and are living a perfectly normal and happy life.
In the second place, the reason why I suggest that the attitude of the doctors


needs to be looked at again is that the figures of cancer mortality are now so large that it is pointless to pretend any longer that the disease is something which affects only a small number of people and that the less said about it the better. In any case, we have so much to he apprehensive about in this particular day and generation that one more cause of apprehension can hardly prove fatal to our morale. Secrecy may save a certain number of people from worrying about cancer, but at the same time it is condemning thousands of people to die many years before they need. It has been estimated by a reputable investigator that there are every year 8,000 people whose lives could be considerably prolonged if they had only sought advice and treatment at the proper time.
A doctor who has given up a great deal of his time and energy to the study of this subject tells me that one of his hopes is that when the time comes, as I feel sure it must come, for a wider amount of education on this matter to be encouraged, he will be able to help to make an instructional film which will open with a crowd of people of all ages coming out of a building. The commentator will ask "Who are these people? What have they in common?" The answer will be that they are not actors and actresses or people taking part in a crowd scene. They will all be people who have been successfully treated for cancer at some time during the last five, 10, 15 or even 20 years, and have survived to live useful and happy lives. In that way he would be able to demonstrate clearly the fact that so much has been done in regard to many forms of cancer.
A question mark still remains over the general problem of the disease, but there is no reason to assume that the scientists and doctors will not ultimately find the cure. It is safe to say that if only a quarter of what is spent on nuclear research and only a quarter of the number of great scientists engaged on it were able to transfer their efforts so as to add them to what is being done by the men and women engaged in cancer research today, we would find the answer during this present generation. In this connection, it is only fair to say that out of the discovery of nuclear fission it may well be that knowledge will become available which in itself will

be of great help in the treatment of cancer.
In conclusion, may I refer briefly to a book written by Professor Sidney Russ? He has written an invaluable book on the subject and he gives as the chief reason for writing it the importance of seeking early advice. He says:
It is still true today that many people have such a dread of the disease that they go all too late for medical advice; there is not only the testimony of the general practitioner to this effect, but over and over again in reports of treatment coming from the chief centres of radiotherapy does one find the lament that patients coming for treatment are found in an advanced stage of the disease; this makes treatment so much more difficult.
Lord Horder has written a foreword to the book, in which he says:
A policy of reticence in respect of a disease so widespread and so lethal as cancer has always seemed to me very foolish. Statesmen who adopt such measures when the body politic is in danger whether from the enemy within or without the gates are rightly severely censured by the thinking citizen. So should we be censured if we allow a false delicacy to screen us from telling the public what is the real position in regard to this particular menace to its life and happiness and from pointing out to the public how it can help to achieve victory.
The Parliamentary Secretary bas shown great interest in this subject and I hope that she will give a sympathetic hearing at least to the general principles underlying the ideas which I have ventured to lay before the House.

3.3 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I welcome the opportunity provided by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) to discuss this very important question.
We all recognise and appreciate the concern, which is very widespread, at the incidence of this disease, which is referred to in the Chief Medical Officer's report for 1950 as now second as a cause of death only to diseases of the heart and circulatory system. We have to bear in mind that allowance must be made for the increasing age of the population and to the fact that more people are surviving into the ages when cancer more commonly occurs. We should take into account the fuller and earlier diagnosis, which does increase the figures.
Three main points were raised by my hon. and gallant Friend: early diagnosis and treatment; the question of publicity for a cancer campaign; and the question of research. I would like to deal with the points in that order. Despite the very great improvements made in the methods of treating this disease, we are forced to admit that, short of some revolutionary discovery, our chief hope of improving present methods at the moment lies in earlier diagnosis and treatment.
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that treatment is often more successful in patients where cancer is found to be in its very early stages. That must be our main hope until, as a result of the very widespread research which is under way, and which is world wide, we are able to find a cure for this disease. As far as diagnosis and treatment are concerned one thing is extremely important, and that is that it is not really a disease which it is practicable to make notifiable. But we can and are encouraging full and most extensive registration of cases which come for treatment, because we cannot know anything about the incidence of cancer, as opposed to the mortality of cancer, until we have encouraged registration over a number of years. The radiotherapy clinics are gathering valuable information.
It has been urged from many quarters that much suffering could be saved by educating the public in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer; and I repeat that the emphasis is on education, rather than on propaganda. But the problem is not easy, because we are faced with deeply divided opinion from responsible medical quarters. The objections to a widespread direct education programme to the public are very weighty. It has been pointed out that publicity would greatly distress and alarm the public, and increase the already widespread fear of cancer; the consulting rooms would be swamped with frightened people wanting to know if they suffered from this dreaded disease, and the overworked general practitioners would have even more thrown upon them. The demand for beds in our hospitals would be increased, and this would present an intolerable burden on our resources.
It would be wrong to have a national campaign based on fear. The matter has been referred to the Minister's Standing

Cancer and Radiotherapy Advisory Committee, but this body eventually advised against a cancer campaign addressed direct to the public. But that reply did not imply that local health authorities should omit reference to cancer in their general health propaganda; for, while it was felt to be highly undesirable to have a national campaign based almost inevitably on fear, yet in the field where local knowledge counts for so much, a great deal could be done by education through a more restrained type of information. That could be carried on by the local health authorities, and the very useful and now renowned voluntary associations.
We are considering what encouragement we can best give to the local authorities and voluntary bodies to help in exploratory work in seeing what can be done about this dread disease. There is a lot we should like to know about it. We want, for example, to know how great a strain a publicity campaign would place on the local facilities, and whether such a campaign would, in fact, achieve the results which we all have so much at heart. We are considering all these problems with our advisors, and are as anxious as any hon. Member that we should find a solution to this problem. So far as doctors and medical students are concerned, we have made a start with further education in the early recognition of cancer. We have six films for showing to doctors and professional audiences, dealing with cancer of particular sites.
I am aware of public concern at the amount of cancer research being carried out. Much of the criticism is based on ignorance of the work which is being done and the feeling that additional large sums of money on cancer research would necessarily bring results. I do not believe that the mere spending of money would bring results which we cannot at present attain. Cancer research is world-wide. Mercifully, there is no Iron Curtain in medical research. Vast sums have been spent by the United States, though they have brought them no nearer to a solution than our own research. It is fair to say that should any country discover a cure it would be internationally shared. This country is playing its part. It is quite impossible to give the House figures or to assess the total sum spent. There is extensive research in National


Health Service hospitals. There are many teaching hospitals which are specialising in this work.
Exact figures are not available for research, because the cost cannot be separated from the general cost of treatment of cancer patients or distinguished from the cost of treatment and investigation into other diseases. A great deal of research is carried out directly through a large number of medical, surgical and scientific studies. The report of the Medical Research Council for 1950–51 says:
… the advance of knowledge in cancer research is dependent upon almost every branch of medical investigation and indeed upon many other branches of science.
Universities, too, have a very large share in cancer research. Three of our universities have specialised centres dealing entirely with cancer research. Also, the work of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell in the development of radioactive isotopes shows how research into nuclear physics can provide an important method of treatment of cancer. Developments in nuclear physics have made it possible to construct new types of high voltage apparatus for research treatment and this has already been ordered for our National Health Service hospitals.
The British Empire Cancer Campaign and the Imperial Research Fund are

voluntary bodies and supported by voluntary contributions. I am sure that the House will agree that cancer research is an excellent object for private generosity. The Medical Research Council is in the closest touch with all these bodies and, indeed, in touch with research all over the world. The Research Council has increased its expenditure considerably. In 1945–46 it spent about £6,000 directly on cancer research. In 1951–52 it devoted £340,000 specifically to cancer research and this year it will spend £410,000, the latter figure including £150,000 for financing the research activities of the Royal Cancer Hospital.
We are fully alive to this problem. Research on a very wide scale is continuing and unceasing consideration is being given to public education by local authorities and voluntary bodies and arrangements are being made to improve the all-important process of registration. We are taking the best advice available and we are as anxious as I know all hon. Members of this House are that all possible treatment shall be available and everything possible shall be done to wipe out this scourge.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes past Three o'Clock a.m.